Post Edited (Tom) : 1/22/2009 7:24:13 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Similtude) : 1/22/2009 9:48:34 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 1/23/2009 11:36:04 AM (GMT-6)

Daniel: I'd find it rather ironic that someone such as MLK would even run for public office considering the implications.

Tom: Exactly. Ironic, given his pacifism. So how's the irony not also extend to MLK's seeking to effect the State (a power-over structure) AT ALL. What would he propose by it?

Daniel: To use Boyd's language, how can the power-under kingdom use power-over methods to achieve it's ends? It can't.

Tom: Driving the money changes from the Temple sure looks like an exercise of power-over to me. I mean, Jesus hardly said, “Hey guys, this is my Father’s house of prayer. I can only ask you kindly to leave. Would you mind?” to which all the money changers said, “Oh, pardon us Jesus. Sure. We’re leaving agreeably right now.” However you interpret passage, I don’t think Jesus comes out exactly violent-free.

Now, even if MLK didn’t use power-over methods himself, he certainly expected those in power to bring civil government in line with what he felt was right. I mean, he sought to affect civil government with a view to the State's enforcing right (racial) behavior through power over structures. In the end, he sought to benefit FROM power-over enforcement of laws it was his aim to convince the State to adopt. He wanted the State, for example, to make it illegal to ban black people from eating in certain restaurants. But seeking that legislation from the State means nothing if you also don't concede the State's role in enforcing those laws. I don't see how strict pacifists justify EVER seeking answers from power-over structures like the State. Given the universal corruption of human governments and their use of force/violence, all I can see a pacifist doing to affect change is to "suffer." That's it.

(See what I mean Jeff?) 

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 1/25/2009 6:18:28 AM (GMT-6)

Tom: Driving the money changes from the Temple sure looks like an exercise of power-over to me. I mean, Jesus hardly said, “Hey guys, this is my Father’s house of prayer. I can only ask you kindly to leave. Would you mind?” to which all the money changers said, “Oh, pardon us Jesus. Sure. We’re leaving agreeably right now.” However you interpret passage, I don’t think Jesus comes out exactly violent-free.

Brandon:  Right.  Daniel said, "Matthew, Mark and Luke seem to give a general description of the event. According to those Evangelists, He made all of the money-changers leave."  I suppose it is possible to view this as being violent-free (though that seems to really stretch things a bit), however, he certainly wasn't "coercive-free."  Right?

Tom:  Now, even if MLK didn’t use power-over methods himself, he certainly expected those in power to bring civil government in line with what he felt was right. I mean, he sought to affect civil government with a view to the State's enforcing right (racial) behavior through power over structures. In the end, he sought to benefit FROM power-over enforcement of laws it was his aim to convince the State to adopt. He wanted the State, for example, to make it illegal to ban black people from eating in certain restaurants. But seeking that legislation from the State means nothing if you also don't concede the State's role in enforcing those laws. I don't see how strict pacifists justify EVER seeking answers from power-over structures like the State. Given the universal corruption of human governments and their use of force/violence, all I can see a pacifist doing to affect change is to "suffer." That's it.

Brandon:  Which is to also say that we shouldn't necessarily wait for God to somehow see to it that justice is accomplished providentially.  As if we should wait for God to save Jews from a holocaust.

(See what I mean Jeff?) 

Jeff: I see exactly what you mean. And this was my point as well. The only point of doing sit-in's in privately-owned restaraunts was to influence the government to COERCE those restaraunt owners by the force of law. That force, if resisted, always results in violence. The state is force writ large. That's why it is so effective at motivating by FEAR just like Rom. 13 says. It is a ministry unto good by that very means, just like Paul says. For it serves as a motivator to those who are not motivated by sympathetic motives. And yet, as you say, all human governments are corrupt and corrupting, which results in their own injustices and the diminishing of their effectiveness in their God-given ministry.

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 1/30/2009 4:20:23 PM (GMT-6)

Daniel: I think this is different then simple trespassing. The owners of those properties (and schools and public buildings) were not allowing blacks to sit down and eat precisely because they were black. I think we can agree that racism is wrong. What is a kingdom response to this? As N.T. Wright says, the methods of the Kingdom will match the message of the Kingdom. The message of the kingdom in respect to race relations is that of equality (At least as far as I can determine, there is nothing that differentiates between the redeemed. There are no 'level's' of salvation).

Jeff: It does not follow because I ought to treat people equally that I have the right to trespass on other folks' property to FORCE them to be equal. Have you thought about all the implications of that ethic? There would be no end to the amount of trespassing and compulsion upon your neighbors that you, as a non-state functionary, would be obligated or permitted to do.

Daniel: I think it is loving one's neighbor by displaying to them equality of races.

Jeff: You do that by treating people equally YOURSELF. By your logic, if I knew my neighbor wouldn't loan his lawn mower to some ethnic group merely because of their ethnicity, I would be within my rights to take the lawn mower from neighbor's house and loan it to one such ethnic person just to DISPLAY equality. Like I said, there is no end to the non-violent, compulsion that this logic leads to. You may be right, but you haven't provided an argument that demonstrates you're right.

Daniel: Whether or not they feel loved by the action is immaterial. Just like I'm sure the Money-Changers didn't feel loved when Jesus kicked them out of the temple, he was displaying love to them by showing that the Gentiles were welcome to worship and pray in the temple.

Jeff: Christ specifically appealed to the fact that the temple was his FATHER'S HOUSE. Hence, he had the right to protect it from abuse. It does not follow that we are divinely authorized to drive people from strip-bars, etc. simply because they have no God-given right to behave thus. You need to put your premises in a syllogistic form, and you will see that your argument proves too much. And an argument that proves too much proves nothing.

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 2/2/2009 12:14:12 AM (GMT-6)