Featured Violence

Being a martyr and getting killed by a ravening lunatic for no reason other than he's blood thirsty are two different things entirely. If I have a choice to die or denounce God, I'd like to think I'd choose death. But if I have a choice between dying and living at the whim of a psycho, I will definitely choose life.

Especially if my family are in danger. If it's his life or my family's, I am going to protect what God has entrusted to me with my life.

 

You might think of this as a crude analogy, and as all analogies, there are holes. But I love my children. I also believe in corporal punishment (meted out in a Godly fashion, not out of anger). I do not cease to love my kids when I deal with their actions through physical discipline. I did not hate that man that night he attempted to mug me. And, being a soldier, I did not hate those Afghans (Afghanies? I can't remember right now which is the respectful term. Don can help me out here). In fact, I pitied them. I was sad it came to that.

This is going to sound harsh. Very harsh. But please believe me when I say that this is not a personal attack, but hopefully an eye opening question. Who do you love more, your enemy or your wife? If you love your enemy to the point of allowing your wife to be raped or killed because you got killed taking a bullet for her but refused to neutralize him, then I'll let you fill in the rest. I am honestly not trying to attack, offend, or upset you. Just trying to get you to think this through to its conclusion.

Loving someone does not mean that you allow them to do evil unopposed. It is forgiving, it is charitable, but it is not a license to do as you will. If someone shot me and made me a paraplegic, I'd like to think that I'm big enough to forgive him. That's love. Letting him shoot me without a struggle is not love. Letting him harm my family because I will not kill him is not love. Forgiving him for trying is love. Calling the doctor and possibly even paying for his medical expenses afterwards; this is love. Putting some quikclot in a bullet wound so he doesn't die; this is love.

As with disciplining a child, love is not inherently nonviolent. As spanking my child, then hugging them to let them know our relationship is restored is love, so is becoming violent with an attacker, and then treating them with kindness.

Love your enemies. Pray for those that persecute you. But Christ never told us to go to death willingly. If this is what you believe, then by all means, live it. I wish no ill on you or your house. But that type of decision should not be made lightly, or on your own. Get input from those who would suffer from your inaction, namely your wife.

 

back in the late 60's I had a sensei who told us after a particularly rigid session where he honed our street fighting techniques that when confronted by a bully, or bullies, we should run the other way, away from the instigators.
Of course that got us all lit up.
What ?
After all this hard work and pain you tell us to run when we get a chance to use what we know ?
And he said, you see, you're running away FOR THEM, not FROM THEM.
I thought that made sense.

So, when somebody suggested that Israel blanket bomb Palestinians to get back at Hamas regardless of 'collateral damage' I disagreed.
I think that instead of getting into that kind of violence Israel should use its capabilities sparingly, or selectively, for the sake of what was termed 'collateral damage'.

 

I have really appreciated reading this thread. A good topic. I think that the legitimate uses for "Christian violence" (surely an oxymoron!) is a lot less than modern - especially we American - Christians think. Our country is more prone to violence than many others, and I believe that we are more prone to justify violence.

We have to a large degree lost sight of the radicalness of Christ's teaching. A good part of tht radicalness is teaching like turning the oher cheek and "put away your sword".

I have been surprised, RLBosley, that you are standing alone on this topic. I kept waiting for some others to agree. To me, the points you raise (with a few minor quibbles) seem self-evident. Kudos for giving us a good topic, and for bringing up good passages to consider.

(I hope this post makes it through the Great Firewall. It has been very frustrating recently. Anything Google-related, even using Google applets, like BB does, stands a good chance of being blocked. Fingers crossed. One never realizes how much Google has permeated Netdom until everything that is Google-dependent gets blocked!)

 

The NT testifies that civil government bears the sword to execute God's judgment upon the evildoers. May Christian be a police officer? A judge? A prison warden? A governor? A soldier?

You're saying loving one's neighbor means to allow the victimization of his neighbor if he can't be protected through nonviolent means.

 

You're not paying attention. I didn't say these verses had nothing to do with violence. I said in post #12, "there are no verses in the entire Bible, including those you listed, which forbid violence in general, especially for self defense. I stand by that statement, which remains unanswered.

Concerning these three passages, simply defending myself does not mean I do not love the attacker. Secondly, "Live at peace with all men" in Rom. 12:18 is prefaced with "As much as is in you," so it certainly is not a command against violence. Thirdly, how does subduing a person who is attacking me or my family count as evil? It only does if you have a presupposition that all violence is evil.

No, sorry, you are the one being absurd. No one is advocating "beating up" an attacker or killing them, least of all me. I've never beat up or killed anyone, nor have I ever taught it in any self defense class or seminar I've ever taught. Furthermore, not resisting an insult does not logically translate to not resisting violence. That is a non sequitor.

You've completely missed the point. Never mind if I have a kingdom or not. The passage clearly teaches that Christ was not against all violence, but there is a proper place for violence. Perhaps this is the best passage in the Bible to advocate a just war doctrine.

You changed the subject. Neither I nor anyone else here is advocating the church inflicting violence. And my point was that violence is not ergo evil if God is doing it. Therefore if it is not evil to God, there are times when it is not evil to His people.

I thought better of you. Let me put it this way. If a man comes in my house and tries to rape my wife but I subdue him violently, am I then as wicked as the pastor I know who slept with a 17 year old not his wife and is now in the pen?

And by the way, my conscience is 100% pure in this area. I haven't had a violent conflict with anyone in almost 50 years unless you count teaching self defense (which to me is an act of love). It's disappointing that you would make this accusation. I thought better of you, but now I know.

Violence is physical action taken against another person. You said violence causes harm, but it may or may not. I can put an armlock on you that will cause immense pain but not harm you at all. A policeman may have a violent shootout with a bad guy with both missing every shot, as has happened, and no one being harmed.

This brings up the point: is it right or wrong for a policeman to use violence against a criminal?

 

We have a winner! Spot on, Aaron.

 

Regarding Matthew 26:52 --

Perhaps Bos can tell us why Jesus said "Put your sword away" instead of "Throw your sword away."

One would think that, if the statement "live by the sword ... die by the sword" were to be taken at face value for all eventualities, Jesus would not want one of His inner circle to own such a vile instrument. If one were to never use a sword, wouldn't Jesus counsel not to even possess one? Yet it was He who had told Peter just hours before to have the sword in the first place!

Luke 22, NASB
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." ​

One can't read these two passages and come to the conclusion that Jesus was totally against violence at any time. If it became necessary, He advised His disciples to use it.

Pacifists read civil non-violence into every mention of “peace” in the New Testament. But that is hardly ever what the original human authors or the Holy Spirit were addressing. In the one place Jesus did clearly address “peace” in the civil non-violence sense—the sort of “peace” Pacifists have in mind—he firmly and absolutely denied he was teaching an ethic of Pacifism. In that passage Jesus very clearly explains to His disciples:

Matthew 10
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. ​

We must not forget that Jesus of the New Testament is also God of the Old Testament. Because the character of God never changes.

Malachi 3
6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."

James 1
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. ​

This means the moral character of Jesus cannot be different than it always had been and always will be -- without variation. So, if God in the Old Testament approved of righteously executed violence in the name of self-defense or defense of the helpless then so did Jesus in the New Testament. This is an important part of the essential doctrine affirmed about Jesus by the writer of Hebrews, who said “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

 

Well said. How to handle persecution and how to defend one's self against wicked people (with no religious animus) are two different matters.

 

Jesus himself commanded his Apostles to get swords to defend themselves with though...

And when a person does crime, or behaves by rape/murder others, they will fall under the judgement of God for their crimes in the sense of penaly assessed, and one of those just might be having the one getting wronged have the to defend themselves against the attacker!
i see nothing in the NT that prohibits a christian carrying a gun, having martial arts traiining, boxing skills etc, and not being able to use appropiate force to defend themselves with!
I know some would see it as not having faith in God to protect us if we are threatened by rape/murder/robbery, but I see it more as using what the Lord
provided to us for protection!

John the baptist did not tell the soldiers to lay down their weapons did he?

 

Agree! Totally.

Agree with some 'minor quibbles'.

RLB and Tom:

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the example of Sergeant York, you must admit, it certainly seems that the Lord strengthened his hand in combat.

Yes, it is an excellent topic, the points he raises should be self-evident, and the desire to 'do no ill' to one's neighbor should be the NATURAL INCLINATION of the regenerate heart, but, do you really think that Christ was changing the law in the SOM? Or was He, as author of the law, giving an exposition of the law showing the spirituality of the law? I personally don’t believe that He changed anything, He expounded upon it. For instance, I believe Ecc 3:1-8 is just as true today as it was then and He did not tell the soldiers seeking guidance (Lu 3:14) to change their occupations.

When He says to love your enemies, I can’t imagine that He meant God’s enemies (Ps 139:21-24). Remember that His immediate audience was Israel, which, considered typically (by type), indicates He is referring to your enemies ‘in the Lord’, and it’s the religious persecution that was soon to come upon them from their own fellow Jews (Heb 10:32-37) that is the immediate intent here. I believe that “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” is intended within the realm of religious persecution, i.e. Jews persecuting Jews, and later Christians persecuting Christians. Imagine the impact that the martyrdom of Stephen had upon Saul, or Servetus upon Calvin. But I can’t imagine that He intended for us to abandon our survival instincts to defend ourselves in the face of great danger from the criminal/sociopathic element.

On the other hand RLB, I greatly admire your nonviolent stance in the spirit of the religion of Jesus Christ, I’ve no doubt that you’re the kind of gentle people I always enjoy being in the company of.

 

There are no qualifications or exceptions to "love your enemies." When Jesus said that, He was referring to all people everywhere. Love God ... love others. That is the gist of the Law, and it carries no caveats.

And as I've said on another thread this morning, the two lines are parallel only within the limits of our own poor human vision. They are not contradictory or exclusive of one another. We love our enemies, but we are not to stand by passively while they rape, loot and pillage -- or while they denigrate our God and Lord. We love unconditionally, but we fight justly. Learn the requirement of doing both.

 

Do you love Satan?

 

God was the one thay had israel execute his judgement upon those pagan nations, so if God is always against use of force then?

And Jesus had His disciples take up swords for defense, so?

trust me, see no problem with a Christian using a gun or karate to defend his wife/kids if attacked!

 

Would you respond to my post that begins with the question regarding Matthew 26:52?

How does Satan qualify as an "other" in that context?