 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/23/2007 11:02 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Jeff: Here's what Greg has posted recently, in defense of pacifism:
Yet, I want to end by saying that this doesn't mean I or anyone else can pass judgment on the security guard or question the authenticity of her faith. Jesus proclaimed that the faith of a sword-wielding Roman Centurion -- a high ranking officer in the Roman army! -- had greater faith than anyone he'd found in Israel (Mt 8:5-10). And, while I'm certain Jesus didn't condone the Centurion's military profession (especially being an unjust oppressor of Israel), neither did he confront it. Jesus meets us where we're at, and we're all at different places as we "work out our salvation" (Phil 2:13).
I thus cannot judge the security guard or any other Christian serving in the police force or military in a capacity in which they might have to kill public or national enemies. But neither can I with integrity claim to understand how they reconcile this with the teachings of the New Testament. So when asked, I feel obliged to help Kingdom folks wrestle with their decision to use potentially lethal force for any reason.
I confess I can not make sense out of Greg's definition of judgment. When you say a christian acts contrary to the clearly revealed will of God, how are you not judging them? What does judgment mean if that's not a judgment? Can someone define "judgment" for me such that this makes sense? To my mind, it doesn't matter where God MEETS us at. What matters is whether people believe and obey the supposed revealed will of God (i.e., the scriptures Greg quotes in the post) ONCE they have read it. And is not Greg clearly saying they DON'T believe that revelation EVEN after having read it? I can't make sense out of this man's take on judgment. Someone please help.
When Paul tells the strong not to judge the weak who won't drink wine or who eat only herbs, this is legitimate precisely BECAUSE there are no scriptural commands to us against such dietary choices. What Greg is saying, on the other hand, is that he is not judging, while simultaneously saying as plain as day that non-pacifists ARE WRONG.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Greg judging non-pacifists. If he finds pacifism to be the only reasonable interpretation of the NT, then he must do just that. What I can't understand is how he convinces himself he's not judging. The only way I can even conceive that Greg is being consistent, is if he is saying that pacifism is SO hard to see in scripture that God doesn't really expect people to see it. But if that's the case, then God doesn't expect people to live as pacifists either. Right?
But if pacifism is as CLEARLY taught in scripture as Greg seems to suggest--as clear as, say, the inappropriateness of adultery and theft--then why are christians immune from judgment about the use of force? Does God really care more about whether I steal from someone than if I kill someone contrary to His will? How does Greg make this logic work?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/23/2007 11:46 PM (GMT -6) | | For context, here's the full text from http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/ :
Was the Christian Security Guard a Hero?
On December 9, Matthew Murray walked onto the campus of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and began shooting at people. He killed one person and wounded several others before a volunteer church security guard, who was also a member of the church, shot him (she wounded him, after which he shot and killed himself). The pastor of the church called the security guard a "hero." I've received dozens of e-mails from people asking me if I agree with the pastor, so I thought I'd briefly share my thoughts.
Let me say at the start that I have the utmost respect for people serving in the police force. These folks put themselves in harms way to protect innocent people from dangerous people like Matthew Murray. It's an honorable profession. On top of this, there's no question that the action take by this security guard was justified (by normal "just-war" criteria) and brave. In this sense I have no problems agreeing that this security guard was a "hero."
At the same time, just because a profession is honorable and an act of violence is justified and even heroic doesn't mean it's appropriate for Kingdom people. Paul teaches that God allows governments to use the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order (Rom. 13:1-4). But in the seven verses leading up to this passage Paul forbids Christians from engaging in this sort of behavior (Rom. 12: 14, 17-21).
Every Kingdom person who considers entering into an occupation where they might have to kill someone -- indeed, any Kingdom person who considers using potentially lethal violence against enemies in any circumstance and for any reason -- has to wrestle with the question of how they reconcile this violence with the teachings of the New Testament.
Here's a list of everything the New Testament says about how Kingdom people (as opposed to governments and nations) are to view and treat their enemies. We're to....
* love our enemies (Lk 6:27, 35; Mt 5:44) (and remember, love is defined in the New Testament by pointing us to the example of Jesus dying for his enemies, [I Jn 3:16])
* follow Jesus' example by being willing to suffer unjustly at the hands of enemies, even when we have the power to crush them (1 Pet 2:18-23, 3:15-16; Eph 5:1-2, cf. Rom. 5:10)
* do good to our enemies (LK 6:27, 34-35)
* bless our enemies instead of curse them (LK 6:28; Rom. 12:14)
* pray for our enemies (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:28)
* forgive our enemies and ask God to forgive them (Lk 6:37; 11:4; 23:34)
* give to our enemies without expecting anything in return (Mt 5:44; Lk 6: 30, 34)
* feed our enemies when they need food (Rom. 12:20)
* give drink to our enemies when they need water (Rom. 12:20
* never resist evil with force (Mt 5:38-39)
* treat enemies as we wish they'd treat us (Lk 6:31)
* never return evil with evil but always return evil with good (Rom. 12:17, 19; I Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9)
* never exact vengeance against our enemies, trusting God to do this instead (Rom. 12:17-19)
* turn the other cheek when struck (Mt 5:39; Lk 6:29)
* pray for the healing of our enemies rather than seek to injure them (Mt 26:51-53)
* humbly serve our enemies (Jn 13:1-5)
* respond gently when interrogated under persecution by enemies (1 Pet 3:15)
* consider our sin to be worse than those of our enemies (Mt 7:1-3; I Tim. 1:15-16).
To the best of my knowledge, this represents everything the New Testament teaches on the matter. Note that nowhere do we find any exception clause in these teachings. Jesus doesn't say "Love and do good to your enemies except when common sense tells you you need to kill them."
It's also important to remember that many of those who were originally given these teachings subsequently endured the agony of watching their families fed to lions or burned alive before being tortured and executed themselves. The "enemies" the New Testament talks about are not just grumpy neighbors or personal enemies. They include national enemies, enemies who are terrorists, life-threatening enemies, and enemies who threaten not only us but also our loved ones.
Now, let's be honest. This teaching strikes most of us as impractical, if not insane, unpatriotic and even immoral. To not use whatever force is necessary to protect loved ones, innocent people and our nation from dangerous people strikes most of us as just plain wrong! So, many think, whatever Jesus and others in the New Testament meant with their teaching about loving enemies, they couldn't possibly have intended to rule out killing them when it's justified to do so.
I empathize with the sentiment completely. But, if I'm honest with myself, this seems to be exactly what Jesus and others in the New Testament are ruling out. I've looked at this teaching from every possible angle and I see no way around this conclusion.
I grant that this teaching violates our common sense. But how common-sensical was it for the omnipotent God to let himself get tortured and killed unjustly rather than use his power to defeat his foes? And we're supposed to follow this example (Phil. 2:5-7; Eph 5:1-2;1 Pet 2:18-23, 3:15-16). Jesus himself is aware that the teaching goes against common sense, but he stresses that it brings about a distinctly Kingdom reward for just this reason (Mt 5:44-47; Lk 6:32-35). The Kingdom is radical, holy (set apart) and beautiful precisely because it is not "common."
Every person who has pledged to live in the way of Jesus, rather than the way of the world, but who nevertheless carries (and is willing to use) a gun, for any reason, has to wrestle with this New Testament teaching. For my two cents, I confess I cannot see how the two are compatible. The use of lethal force may at times be justified and heroic by ordinary kingdom of the world standards. But I cannot see how it's compatible with being a citizen of the Kingdom of God.
Yet, I want to end by saying that this doesn't mean I or anyone else can pass judgment on the security guard or question the authenticity of her faith. Jesus proclaimed that the faith of a sword-wielding Roman Centurion -- a high ranking officer in the Roman army! -- had greater faith than anyone he'd found in Israel (Mt 8:5-10). And, while I'm certain Jesus didn't condone the Centurion's military profession (especially being an unjust oppressor of Israel), neither did he confront it. Jesus meets us where we're at, and we're all at different places as we "work out our salvation" (Phil 2:13).
I thus cannot judge the security guard or any other Christian serving in the police force or military in a capacity in which they might have to kill public or national enemies. But neither can I with integrity claim to understand how they reconcile this with the teachings of the New Testament. So when asked, I feel obliged to help Kingdom folks wrestle with their decision to use potentially lethal force for any reason.
Be a peacemaker.
Greg | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/24/2007 12:17 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
I confess I can not make sense out of Greg's definition of judgment. When you say a christian acts contrary to the clearly revealed will of God, how are you not judging them? What does judgment mean if that's not a judgment? Can someone define "judgment" for me such that this makes sense? To my mind, it doesn't matter where God MEETS us at. What matters is whether people believe and obey the supposed revealed will of God (i.e., the scriptures Greg quotes in the post) ONCE they have read it. And is not Greg clearly saying they DON'T believe that revelation EVEN after having read it? I can't make sense out of this man's take on judgment. Someone please help.
From what I've read of his writing and the sermons I've heard him give on the topic of judgment, the difference is that between discernment (recognizing and acknowledging the discrepancy between one's actions and biblical teaching) and judgmentalism (drawing a conclusion on the state of another's heart based on what you've discerned).
In Greg's understanding, the New Testament exhorts Christians to non-violence. Thus he recognizes and discerns the discrepancy between this understanding of biblical teaching, and the violent action of a Christian security guard. However, he also recognizes it is not his or anyone's place to use such discernment to judge her heart, because only God and God alone knows the full context of her heart, motives, the state of her spirit, etc.. Greg's teaching is that God alone can simultaneously love and judge us with perfect love and perfect judgment; for us finite humans, love and judgment are mutually exclusive, and the extent that you're doing one directly corresponds to the extent you're not doing the other.
His book "Repenting of Religion" is pretty much devoted to this topic. Therein he applies this same principle to any and all situations, including severe things such as those you mentioned (theft, adultery, murder); it is sufficient to recognize a violation of a biblical tenet for what it is (inasmuch as we understand and/or correctly interpret the Bible) - but our response must always be rooted in love (agape, unconditional acceptance), not judgment (putting yourself in the place of God by drawing conclusions about the state of someone's spirit - especially, or in particular, when this manifests itself as rejection).
That's my understanding, thus far. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/24/2007 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | Thanks for that clarification, Ricco. Although the distinction you mention can be made, there is a sense in which it is simply true that if Greg is right about the security guard's action, then her heart was wrong. The only way her heart could be right, regarding that action and supposing Greg to be right about non-violence, was if she shot the man accidentally. And we know from her own testimony that she did not shoot the man accidentally.
So I'm still at a loss to see how Greg is not judging her heart. When Paul talks about not judging the heart, he means not judging the specific motivations of the heart that CAN NOT be known by another. He does not mean we can not know that a heart motive is WRONG when the final result of that heart motive is unconditionally WRONG.
In this case, for example, the woman's motive was to shoot the man. As far as Greg is concerned, the specific motive (whether for praise or protection of others) does not change the fact that her generic motive (i.e., to shoot the man) was wrong.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/24/2007 4:53:37 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/25/2007 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Howdy Jefscott, and Merry Christmas 
Merry Christmas to everyone else as well.
I'm probably not going to do justice to the concepts related in "Repenting of Religion", so rather than me fumbling through trying to describe it, I'd highly recommend the reading of it. It had a major impact on my spirituality and I wish wish wish I had had access to this book when I first became a Christian 23 years ago.
Until you get a chance to read it, I recall that the first time I visited Woodland Hills Church, Greg was giving a sermon on this very topic. If you go to http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_162.htm and scroll down to "9/1/2002 – Judgment and Discernment", the mp3 version of the sermon can be downloaded at only 5.28 megs. A relevant example is between 19:00 and 23:00 (or 19:00 to 29:00).
If/when you check these out, let me know, we'll talk more about it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/28/2007 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, Ricco, I listened to most of that mp3, and it seems to be consistent with what you had previously said Greg taught about judgment. Namely, he says we aren't supposed to judge what we DON'T and CAN'T know. But Greg is claiming that he KNOWS that the security guard did wrong. This is because he tells us that the kind of force she used is unconditionally wrong for christians, in saying:
"To the best of my knowledge, this represents everything the New Testament teaches on the matter. Note that nowhere do we find any exception clause in these teachings. Jesus doesn't say 'Love and do good to your enemies except when common sense tells you you need to kill them.'"
So though he may not judge the specific motive of why she used the force, he is judging the motive to actually shoot the man in the first place. I.e., he is at least judging, as wrong, her intention to shoot the man and her subsequent following through with that intention.
But the whole lack of exception clauses in the verses Greg chooses makes me wonder: Does Greg think that all remarriages after divorce constitute adultery? Because Jesus spoke with such exceptionless clauses on the matter. And that is why we should be careful not to absolutize verses unless we are prepared to do it with all verses that don't provide explicit exceptions, lest we end up judging as wrong what may not BE wrong. In any case, if we are going to judge people as unconditionally wrong for using force but not unconditionally judge remarried people as adulterers, we at least need to know what grounds the distinction in these two judgments.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/28/2007 6:17:13 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/28/2007 10:13 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm going to have to say that it seems to me that perhaps you're missing the actual point that Greg is making about judgment. My own evaluation of his teaching would not be, as you said, "we aren't supposed to judge what we don't and can't know". Rather, the point as I understand it is that we're not supposed to use judgment as a means of exclusion, a tool for rejection, or any other result that would be opposed to Agape. So when I hear Greg say that he knows he shouldn't judge her, this is what I have in mind - that he's saying that any potential theological disagreement he might have with her (or anything she has done which he might, for whatever reason, perceive as "wrong" [note: not saying that he does, necessarily]) does not constitute any ground for rejection, hate, etc.; rather, regardless, he believe his heart and attitude should be one of Agape.
In other words, when he's saying not to judge her, I understand him to ultimately be saying not to think negatively of her, but rather to show her Agape regardlessly.
Does that help to better clarify where (I think) he's coming from on the topic of judgment?Post Edited (Ricco) : 12/28/2007 9:16:54 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/28/2007 10:43 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I agree, Ricco, that what you write there is how Greg sees his analysis of judgment. But he also quoted the verse in 1 Cor. where Paul says we are to judge those that are "within." And by that, Paul means not even eating with certain folks. That would most probably be interpreted, in this modern age, as a form of rejection rather than a form of church discipline and preservation of holiness.
So I'm curious to see how Greg can make his approach work as successfully as he would like, remaining true to all the verses about judgment. Because the fact is, there are things we are told to do in the NT that many a moderner would find as a form of rejection. In today's environment, simply refraining from affirming certain actions and beliefs of folks can be seen as "hating on them." Indeed, this seems to be what was involved in the case of Lot with his countrymen.
So I'm wondering: if Greg agrees with Paul (and Jesus, too, who said count the unrepentant church members as publicans) that there are reasons to refrain from companying with certain folks, would he deem the justification of shooting people as a reason for such withdrawal of fellowship? Greg likes to talk about how Jesus ate with the publicans. But Christ said, in justification of that behavior, that he came to CALL SINNERS TO REPENTANCE. In other words, that is a different situation than a professing believer living a life of unrepentant rebellion to the will of God known communally by a church--and Greg seems to make it plain that he thinks his view on non-violence is pretty much clear as a bell in scripture.
So not just Paul, but Christ too, makes a distinction in how to deal with the different cases. And that alone makes Greg's tendency towards hyper-unconditionalism problematic for me. Greg said, in fact, in that same sermon that Christ's kind of love attracted sinners to him. But it absolutely did NOT attract the majority of his contemporaries. There is no mode of outrageously-loving living that is going to attract ALL people to us or to Christ. We can know this simply because of Christ's own example and words.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/28/2007 9:47:53 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/29/2007 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Here’s my difficulty with Greg’s position (as I understand it).
First, God is Christlike. Christ reveals the heart and character of God, so if Christ didn’t do it (or if we can’t imagine Christ doing it), then it’s not a “Kingdom” thing to do. I don't disagree with this.
Second, Christ comes to establish God’s Kingdom. The life of that Kingdom is self-sacrificial suffering love. That’s it. No guns. No violence at all. That’s what believers are called to. I don't disagree with this either.
Fine. But Greg admits that God sometimes employs violent means (given the conflicted nature of fallen structures of human society) to accomplish his “purposes.” For example, though he was very opposed to the Iraq war, he admits that ‘now’ (that we’ve made the mistake of going to war) the best thing, the ‘most loving thing’, to do would be for us to remain there to sufficiently stabilize the country. Pulling up and leaving would constitute an evil worse than having gone in at all.
A biblical example. The whole Rom. 13 (et. al. passages) that make clear God’s institution of human government’s role in maintaining security and keeping law.
Here’s my difficulty. Greg just bifurcates God’s relating and dealing with the world, as if God has two differnet policies for running two entirely separate programs, one for the world and one for believers. On the one hand, Christ reveals the “true God,” a non-violent God. Christ is the absolute paradigm. He is what God is like. On the other hand this God, admits Greg, sometimes has to do the best with the hand he’s dealt, and that means, say, working (through whatever means) to keep the US in Iraq.
How do we say God is Christlike, and then argue that "Christlike" means exclusively non-violent, and then argue that God is off doing the best God can do through violent means? Seems to me we have to say that if God's doing the best he can through making use of violence that this is what 'love' does. If Greg can, as a Kingdom believer and follower of Jesus, say that it’s ‘best’ (which can only mean he believes God is pursuing that ‘best’) for the US to stay in Iraq, then what happens to Jesus? Where is he in that equation? I thought God was Christlike? Seems to me that whatever we say God might be up to in the world we have to add that Christ is up to it. And it also makes sense to me to say that whatever God is up to in the world (working in and through the fallen structures and conflicted situations of our world) it’s compatible with God’s plans to bring and establish the Kingdom of Christ in our hearts. Greg can only say that it might be best if we remain in Iraq IF he’s defining ‘best’ in overall terms, from God’s point of view, and with respect to God’s Kingdom purposes (which are God’s ONLY purposes).
But if I can support what I think is the best course of action in what I ‘SAY’ (which means I believe it represents God’s best efforts to manage the conflicted context of our world and is compatible with Christ’s Kingdom), how can it then NOT be ‘kingdom-like’ to support that course of action in what I ‘DO’? That’s where I think Greg is being—what’s the word?—inconsistent. He’ll SAY, “Yeah, we shouldn’t have gone in, but now that we’re there I think it’s best that we remain,” but then disapprove (and he DOES disapprove) of DOING anything to support the course of action he admits is best.
It just doesn't make sense to refuse to materially support a course of action you believe is best.
So Greg has two programs. In one there’s ‘GOD’ who sometimes has to work with/through violent means to pursue the best course of action at the time, and in the other there’s ‘CHRIST’, the pacifist, non-violent, all-loving sufferer. The problem is that Greg says the latter PERFECTLY reveals the former while admitting the former acts in ways the latter did/would not.
It doesn’t make sense.
To be consistent, I think Greg needs to bring the two together under ONE overarching divine policy under which God pursues the establishment of the Kingdom AND under which Christ really does reveal the Father. I don’t know how to say that without saying it’s sometimes loving to employ violence (defined as “causing pain” and not as “hateful vengeance”). If God is Christlike and God sometimes permits pain and violence a subservient role in his purposes, then we have to attribute that permission to Christ and fit it into our understanding of Christ. If not, then God is NOT Christlike.
Jeff?
Tom
Post Edited (PLANIS) : 12/29/2007 5:18:55 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/29/2007 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Ananias and Sapphira. Premature Death. Fear among the people. Post-Christ's Resurrection.
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God."
When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
about three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."
Peter said to her, "How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
***********************************************************
Elymas. Struck blind by the "hand of the Lord." Amazement of the proconsul. Post-Christ's Resurrection.
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.
They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun."
Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand. When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.
*********************
I tried to tell Greg this before "Myth of a Christian Nation" even came out. For real. Any discussion of God's working in the world through the Holy Spirit of Christ HAS to deal with these passages...and the obvious harm-causing (imposed blindness is harm) and death-causing (A and S did fall down DEAD causing FEAR to happen to the CHURCH) "force" against unrighteousness that was exhibited. By all decent means, the Holy Spirit of Christ (the Spirit by which both Peter and Paul worked their miracles) seems to be integrally involved in the 1) death of Ananias and Sapphira and 2) the untimely striking of blindness for Elymas. This makes things even more poignant, IMO, because Peter and Paul were specifically working as emissaries of Jesus WHEN these things occurred. This is all NEW TESTAMENT...so the reasoning of God accommodating to "Old Testament" living won't work.
So, to try to say that God will not use harm-producing (or even death-producing) means to get to Kingdom ends...is tacitly IGNORE the implications of these passages. The Spirit of Jesus CAN bring harm and death through God's very ambassadors of the Gospel...if it's required to get a message accross for God's sovereign purposes. So, it's impossible to say what Greg wants to say about Christ's Spirit being COMPLETELY pacifistic. Completely loving, yes. Completely without dealing harm and death, no.
Now, let's fast forward. Is it POSSIBLE that the Spirit of Jesus may have been guiding the hand of that security guard? Is it POSSIBLE that this was the "hand of the Lord" working against obvious unrighteousness to God's people? Is it even POSSIBLE, Greg?
Listening party...
"War With God"
Ludacris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iKHKssrsSM&feature=related
"For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in Spirit.
"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
Post Edited ("I Am Spirit") : 12/29/2007 6:43:45 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/29/2007 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | I totally agree, Tom/D. It seems that the only way we can plausibly marry the notion of "love" to the NT texts is to admit that EITHER absolute pacifism is so hard to defend that it ought not be a basis for judging the actions of others in an unconditional way OR take that approach that Zach takes--an approach that denies that even God does violence, providentially. If we take the former approach, then there is no reason to assume the OT is opposed to the NT at all, with respect to the notion of love. Only the conditions and divine purposes were different between the two. Or something like that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/29/2007 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: (emphases mine)
It seems that the only way we can plausibly marry the notion of "love" to the NT texts is to admit that EITHER absolute pacifism is so hard to defend that it ought not be a basis for judging the actions of others in an unconditional way OR take that approach that Zach takes--an approach that denies that even God does violence, providentially. If we take the former approach, then there is no reason to assume the OT is opposed to the NT at all, with respect to the notion of love. Only the conditions and divine purposes were different between the two. Or something like that.
Yessir. I really hope that Greg starts taking this into consideration more. If someone bursted into WHC with an automatic weapon trying to kill people and a dedicated Covenant Partner (maybe even me !) ended up forcefully (and, most likely, painfully) subduing them, I would hope that Greg wouldn't rule out the work of Christ's Spirit in that dedicated Covenant Partner in that very action.
I would hope...
"For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in Spirit.
"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/29/2007 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | | My take is that Greg is trying to work out the "already but not yet" nature of the Kingdom. That's the source of the bifurcation. And, we must admit we find bifurcated images in the Bible: turning the other cheek together along with forceful images of Christ coming in judgement. They're both in there. We have to assume they're not in contradiction.
I think Greg is correct in understanding the importance of turning the other cheek in regards to breaking the cycle of violence. When WE take vengeance, we're going beyond our proper bounds, and it breeds greater ugliness, not beauty, in the world. But, if the Holy Spirit decides that A&S should die or Elymas should go blind, we should assume it to be perfectly loving and efficient in bringing greater beauty.
It's not that much of a stretch for me to think of my own relationship to my girls. Yes, I do spank them from time to time, for instructive purposes, not vengeful ones. Especially given my understanding of UR, the act of God striking someone dead does not bring ultimate harm, but ultimately brings greater beauty.
Now, obviously, we're not God (or ARE we??!  ) -- WE should not place ourselves in the judge's seat. I'm not saying that it was moral for the guard to shoot, nor am I saying it's immoral. That guard had to make a call, before the face of God, as to how she would respond. Either way, it's a leap of faith of sorts, both requiring God's grace to work it together for good. I myself presume that I would have shot the dude, because that would seem to minimize the ugliness of further killings. And maybe it's just incidental, but she didn't actually kill him; when he was wounded he committed suicide. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/29/2007 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
I think Greg is correct in understanding the importance of turning the other cheek in regards to breaking the cycle of violence. When WE take vengeance, we're going beyond our proper bounds, and it breeds greater ugliness, not beauty, in the world. But, if the Holy Spirit decides that A&S should die or Elymas should go blind, we should assume it to be perfectly loving and efficient in bringing greater beauty.
Completely agree. Self-sacrificial, humble love is Christ's declared and demonstrated manner of breaking the cycle of violence. No doubt. And any feelings of desiring vengeance are supposed to be given totally to the Lord for the Lord to deal with (Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30; cf Deut 32:35-36). However, Corey, you allow for a Holy-Spirit-filled vessel to be instrumental in bringing harm and death for divine, beautifying purposes. But that's what Greg's current position doesn't allow for. Greg's position doesn't allow for a Kingdom person--a person filled with the Spirit of Jesus and living by that Spirit continually--to be a harm-bringer or death-bringer to other humans...only a peacemaker (read: total pacifist) His words...
Every person who has pledged to live in the way of Jesus, rather than the way of the world, but who nevertheless carries (and is willing to use) a gun, for any reason, has to wrestle with this New Testament teaching. For my two cents, I confess I cannot see how the two are compatible. The use of lethal force may at times be justified and heroic by ordinary kingdom of the world standards. But I cannot see how it's compatible with being a citizen of the Kingdom of God.
Greg's position doesn't even allow him to say that Christ's Spirit could sanction a Kingdom person use "lethal force" of any type. Forget the gun. What would Greg say about a Kingdom person using harm-producing, potentially lethal MARTIAL ARTS techniques that they've learned? (I was a pretty good martial artist back in the day...) Should a Kingdom person even LEARN these techniques...that could be employed at some time, in a time of crisis? The logical extension of Greg's position would say NO. And he definitely couldn't say that Christ's Spirit could use this knowledge in the Kingdom person to forcefully/violently restrain evil.
See the problems?
"For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in Spirit.
"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
Post Edited ("I Am Spirit") : 12/29/2007 8:25:45 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/29/2007 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/29/2007 9:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hell, yeah. I even talked to Paul Eddy about it. Paul saw the points I was making...but...oh, well... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/29/2007 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | | D: However, Corey, you allow for a Holy-Spirit-filled vessel to be instrumental in bringing harm and for divine, beautifying purposes.
Corey: I'm trying to take a position similar to Bonhoeffer in regards to attempting Hitler's assassination. I'm not sure he ever said it was morally right, but only that he couldn't see himself doing otherwise. It may be immoral, and he placed himself at God's mercy and grace if this is indeed sin. There's a leap of faith here; from a human perspective it's morally ambiguous. So, I do agree that a Kingdom person should not be an instrument of death. But neither should a Kingdom person be indirectly an instrument of death to other would-be victims by allowing the killing to continue. Shoot, or don't shoot. Either way you'll regret it.
I guess I didn't realize that Greg claims moral clarity that only the first option (pacifism) is Kingdom. I don't think that's the case. I thought Greg was leaving it more ambiguous than that, that an individual must live in the tension. I think he's concerned that most people don't feel the tension at all; they assume that the (only) moral thing to do is to shoot the assailant. I thought that he's trying to keep it ambiguous.
In any event, in the biblical example you've listed, there was no human agent in bringing about death or blindness. I don't think we see any examples there of "a Holy-Spirit-filled vessel to be instrumental in bringing harm and for divine, beautifying purposes."
Post Edited (Corey) : 12/29/2007 10:34:37 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/29/2007 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | The topic has shifted somewhat, from the definition and application of judgment, to pacifism Which is a really difficult topic. I mean, I definitely appreciate Greg's teaching on this matter - it is a helpful counterweight to some of the unjustified violence wrought by Christians in the past (and present). And as near as I can tell in my perusal of the ante-nicene fathers, the early church was almost entirely pacifistic.
But still, I can't help but to think of 1st Tim 5:8. It would seem to me that providing for your family would include self-defense. Or is that just eisegesis on my part? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/29/2007 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
In any event, in the biblical example you've listed, there was no human agent in bringing about death or blindness. I don't think we see any examples there of "a Holy-Spirit-filled vessel to be instrumental in bringing harm and for divine, beautifying purposes."
What? Weren't Peter and Paul involved in their respective situations? God executing his judgemental providence through the words and actions of his servants? What?
"For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in Spirit.
"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
Post Edited ("I Am Spirit") : 12/29/2007 10:47:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:55 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|