I do feel dogmatic that our judgment is sufficient. But I do not feel that you are weak for not deciding. I am a fence sitter on many things, so if that makes you weak, then I guess I am weak too!
2 Likes
If the question academically is simply whether Jesus and Paul endorse using lethal force to defend others from those who would do them evil, their calls to respond to those who did them harm by doing them good, and their many rebukes of those who advocated a violent response may indeed not address all cases and leave the door open to arguing that they werenāt clear enough to close the door to exceptions.
But what stands out to me is that amid Jesusā themes and a graphic challenge to traditional Jewish assumptions that justified and expected violent force is vital, the evidence is so paltry that Jesus/Paul ever positively endorsed such remedies, or that any of the generations of followers closest to their language and teaching ever understood them to approve such measures, nor that such violent defense of others was practiced by their devoted readers before the church became enmeshed with the empire.
True. However, the same Christ who says these things, is the same Christ who justifies King David in many mattersā¦ Granted, while condoning one aspect of David doesnāt automatically mean Christ condoned his blood lettingā¦ Still, it seems Jesus would have used David as an example negatively, if it so suited his purpose.
The Centurion, like David, was a man of war. We donāt see any calls for this man to leave his post. We donāt donāt see Paul tell people to quit their jobs if they work for Rome. Upon trying to convert Agrippa, we donāt see Paul condemn the violence, or even Pilate who is a man of violenceā¦ What about the praetorian guard? It seems unlikely they would have kept in the service of ceasar if it were wrong.
This hangup in physical violence is quite peculiar to me. We can, apparently say hurtful things (brood of vipers, Paul cursing Alexander, etcā¦) but the minute we lay a finger on someone, we become a very bad personā¦ I donāt buy it. I buy it even less if the Afterlife is real.
I find it really, really (perverse, really) strange to be so hung up in not killing a murderer at the expense of ones family getting killed. To what end? We all die, we all exist in the next life.
Even more scary is someone running to hit a nuclear weapons fire button, and someone with a gun able to out a bullet in his head before he pushes the button, but fails to do so, for reasons of faith, and thus consign millions to death and agonyā¦ All for one scumbag? Canāt comprehend the attachment to a reprobate human being over one who isnāt.
Why is physical pain viewed as more heinous that emotional? If someone was going to rape my daughter and I had the power to kill him, I would. To not do so would be perverse. The same reason that Peterson guy for the mass shooting is under fireā¦The public expected him to serve and defend, and he coward away and hid!
No, I consider you to be mistaken in your interpretation.
Yes indeedā¦ this to me is just common sense.
1 Like
Sort of plays out like the joke that goes over someoneās headā¦ You know? Someine hearing the words of our Lord, not knowing it was sarcasm and runs with it! Sort of like when Jesus commented about the leven of the Pharisees they were like ābread?, Master?ā 
Obviously, this Tolstoi guy has lost his marbles. Maybe he didnāt read the story of Jesus???
I clipped this from the Catholic ezine Crisis Magazine. Just a little food for thought.
What we need is a return to the Ecclesia militans āthe Church Militant, the Church as fighter. Most Catholics now equate Christian charity with both physical and spiritual pacifism. Not only does this turn off men who want to fight for something, but it also ignores the many evils that need to be fought. Real charity involves fighting immorality and error through constant prayer and meaningful action.
That doesnāt necessarily mean that Pope Francis should call for another Crusade. It does mean that he should call out Muslim persecution of Christians, for instance, instead of welcoming ever-greater floods of Islamic immigration into Europe. In other words, he should fight the forces threatening Christiansā souls instead of problems offending his progressive sensibilities like climate change and border walls.
Parish priests can do the same by calling out sin in their own parish and confronting false Catholics. This is what a real man does: he fights to protect his family from evil. Christ scared the Jewish and Roman leaders of His time because He fought for His flock. He called out their hypocrisy and cruelty. He confronted the devil and battled with sin itself. And He did all these things so the men in His charge could take up His banner: āGo your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.ā
In losing their masculinity, Catholics are losing Christ. This is not a just a matter of revising the liturgy (though this would help) or hosting more menās retreats, but of respecting and understanding Christ as a manānot a gender-neutral person.
If the famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoi had lost his marbles because he promoted non-resistance (as did Jesus), then I, too, have lost mine.
Tolstoi was the greatest example I know, of a man who was a true Christianāthat is, one who took the teachings of Christ seriously rather than explain them away as hyperbole, or as some other literary figure of speech.
I wasnāt trying to explain it away , but just explain it. Iām sure you are not preparing to cut your hand off?
3 Likes
Here is another thought-provoker from Hannah Arendt with comment from MavPhil:
The problem is well understood by Hannah Arendt (āTruth and Politicsā in Between Past and Future , Penguin 1968, p. 245):
The disastrous consequences for any community that began in all
earnest to follow ethical precepts derived from man in the singular
-- be they Socratic or Platonic or Christian -- have been
frequently pointed out. Long before Machiavelli recommended
protecting the political realm against the undiluted principles of
the Christian faith (those who refuse to resist evil permit the
wicked "to do as much evil as they please"), Aristotle warned
against giving philosophers any say in political matters. (Men who
for professional reasons must be so unconcerned with "what is good
for themselves" cannot very well be trusted with what is good for
others, and least of all with the "common good," the down-to-earth
interests of the community.) [Arendt cites the *Nicomachean Ethics* ,
Book VI, and in particular 1140b9 and 1141b4.]
There is a tension between man qua philosopher/Christian and man qua citizen. As a philosopher raised in Christianity, I am concerned with my soul, with its integrity, purity, salvation. I take very seriously indeed the Socratic āBetter to suffer wrong than to do itā and the Christian āResist not the evildoer.ā But as a citizen I must be concerned not only with my own well-being but also with the public welfare. This is true a fortiori of public officials and people in a position to influence public opinion, people like Catholic bishops many of whom are woefully ignorant of the simple points Arendt makes in the passage quoted. So, as Arendt points out, the Socratic and Christian admonitions are not applicable in the public sphere."
Gabe, your response ends up arguing what we discussed earlier, that the Anabaptist Jesus is in effect perverse, but the piece youāre responding to not even readressing that; itās only evaluating what reading of him has āacademicā accuracy.
Your effort to balance what Jesus is so explicit about in terms of the witness of his followers actions by citing his failure to condemn OT figures strikes me as a classic argument from silence, which I typically perceive as too speculative to cancel out what a figure has specifically delineated. What actions of Davidās did he ājustifyā that are pertinent to his challenge about OT expectations that the son of David would kick butt?
You correctly say that he and Paul donāt directly challenge the violence of the empire. But Jesus specified that the focus of his kingdom was not on the world in such political terms (as well as the reality that going that political would have been deadly). My impression is that his focus was that his own followers model something different from the empires of the world. Indeed, I think the effective power of his early movement was precisely their faith that enabled such a counter-cultural witness of laying down their lives.
I guess what troubles me about this is the decrying of self-defense. I certainly understand the emphasis on not using the worldās idea of power and violence to enforce oneās opinions or political goals - that is clear NT teaching - but it is not clear to me that prudence in self-defense, to protect those that are oppressed and weak, and to safeguard structures that allow us to practice good morals, love, altruism - is possibly āwrongā. Or un-Christian. Just canāt quite get there. And to go further and judge someone who believes in protecting the innocent as not a follower of Christ ? Well, I couldnāt do that. I could not see Jesus doing that, for that matter.
1 Like
Where does Jesus clearly urge violence not be used to enforce oneās opinions or politics? Rather, my impression is that most of his challenge to violence was centered precisely on challenging Israelās assumption that self-defense was their traditionās core value. For the Biblically devout prayed for a Messiah that would come to the violent aid of an Israel beaten down by the pagans, and thought about exercising the faith in Godās traditional enablement that endorsed such measures, to thus step out and violently protect their brethren.
So under an enemy empire perceived as devastating defenseless Jews, when Jesus says to love their āenemies,ā to absorb evil done, and instead return good, it would be heard precisely as this idiot is talking about the wicked pagans who destroy us, and insisting that we give up defending ourselves, and instead be some kind of martyr. Indeed, most of Jesusā focus on responding to violent attacks on their lives and welfare was explicitly about putting a premium precisely on martyrdom and upon counting it a privilege not to defend themselves, but to count it a joyful privilege to get snuffed.
It sounds crazy to our modern sensibilities, and we can offer plenty of objections to pushing that way of thinking, but when I read how counter-cultural Jesus was, itās not surprising to me at all, that the generations closest to those words concluded that heās talking like we need a deep commitment to some kind of peronal āpacifism,ā where weād rather be dispatched into Godās very presence than kill some lost pervert in order to hold onto earthly life.
Well that is certainly far away from my contention about protecting others, the weak ones, the innocent. Iām not even mentioning KILLING, just protection as far as possible.
A lost pervert is not worth more than an innocent child. I would not hesitate to get between them and try my best to protect the one. Do you really perceive that Jesus himself would not do the same?
Actually, much to the chagrin of you all, the position of the idea that all of the gospel has nothing to do with us here in the 21st century is paramount. Resistance in the time of Christ is obviously different than resistance in the modern 21st century. The Jesus you want to follow Bob is a Jesus of an ancient time. Please donāt misunderstand me, the teachings of Christ are and will forever be creative ideaās, but the context of the text was not, in my interpretation, told to readers of all time.
I have not stated that Jesus never uses figurative language. However, I think it is clear that He wasnāt using figurative language when He asked His disciples not to resist an evil person.
If we relegate all of his teachings to mere figures of speech, we can conveniently disregard them. That is exactly what a lot of people do. However, His basic commands in the so-called āSermon on the Mountā in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 are not figurative language.
True, Jesus used some figurative language such as in ch 7 vs 6:
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
However, it is perfectly clear that He was calling a particular class of people ādogsā and āpigs.ā
It is also clear that He was speaking plainly when He said taught the following (even though He used figures of speech at times:
Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.
And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others.
ā¦ do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
Judge not, that you be not judged.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheepās clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
All of these are perfectly clear, though they contain figurative language.
But if Jesus used figurative language when He said, āDo not resist an evil personā then what did He mean? I see no meaning other than āDo not resist an evil person.ā
Iām not even talking about KILLING anyone, just protection as far as possible.
[/quote]
Good, for I donāt see early Christians as opposing strong efforts short of killing to protect the innocent. Even most pacifists think defining their view of protection as passivity is nonsense. Debating Jesusā words pivoted precisely on whether they supported using deadly violence to preserve Jesusā people.
Perhaps - but donāt say āgoodā yet - killing is not off the table imo. But what Iāve heard above is that we Donāt Resist Evil. Period. No āstrong effortsā. Resist No evil, not just killing.
Do any of you think you could do this - letting your children, your wife, a poor waif - be tortured, raped or killed and you do NOTHING? Iād be ashamed of myself the rest of my life.
Yes that is a reductio argument, but not a bad one. Would Jesus himself watch Mary be raped and do nothing?
1 Like