Over the years people have asked me why, since this is an evangelical blog, I don't mention Jesus more often. My usual glib answer is that I prefer not to name-drop just because I'm on a first name basis with the Creator of the Universe. I also take offense at the implication my sole mission as an evangelical blogger is to end every post with an altar call.
While it's true that I don't casually use the name of Jesus, I believe that, like Flannery O'Connor's South, this blog is "Christ-haunted." Still, there is a time to talk about Jesus more directly. Since I think about him constantly, I often have questions, concerns, surprises, opinions, and--on rarer occasions--insights, about Christ. Here, for instance, are a few thoughts I've had:
Christians believe, as the Nicene Creed states, that Jesus was both "true God" and "truly human." We consider it axiomatic that Jesus is the only human that can claim to be the true God. But I think it could also be argued that Jesus is the only human that can claim to know what it is to be truly human.
It has been said that theology became anthropology when God became man. But I think we fail to appreciate what a significant insight into anthropology was given to us by the incarnation. Not only did Jesus provide us an image of God, he provided us with an image of the pre-Fall man (and, amazingly, did so in a post-Fall context). While it may be difficult to determine what aspects are attributable to his humanity or to his divinity, he gives us a clear vision of what being a human should look like. He gives us a view of what was meant to be and what those who put their trust in him will become in the future.
"Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat," said John Mark Reynolds, "He's probably a monarchist." When I first heard that at GodBlogCon several years ago I thought it was clever; now I find it to be a profound insight. Jesus constantly talked about the Kingdom of Heaven. So why do so few Christians talk about it? One reason, I believe, is that we are now all republicans and democrats (small-R, small-D) and simply don't understand what Jesus is talking about. We may use the term "Lord" and "King of Kings" but--unlike the vast majority of people throughout history--we do not comprehend what it means to live under the reign of a king. We need some remedial training on how to live as subjects in a kingdom. We may be justified in rejecting the divine right of kings to rule but we cannot be justified if we reject the rule of our divine king.
Whenever I hear non-Christians say that they don't like the "Old Testament God" but that they admire Jesus I always wonder, "Have they ever read the Gospels?" Even if you set aside the "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" trilemma you're still left with the fact that Jesus considered everything he did to be consonant with his "Father" (i.e., OTG). His every action, as he claims, was done in submission to God's will.
Sure, he healed people and hung out with sinners. But he also called them to repentance. As the old cliche goes, Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin. In fact, Jesus hates sin more than [Fill in the name of an intolerant Fundamentalist preacher]. And you think OTG was a blood-thirsty war-monger? Jesus goes even further promising not only to pit nations but families against each other. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth," says Jesus. "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." In other words, he ain't no Jewish Ghandi. If you don't like Yahweh, then you shouldn't be too fond of Yeshua either.
In 1896 a Christian socialist named Charles Sheldon wrote a book called In His Steps which popularized the slogan "What Would Jesus Do" and inspired two of the most well-intentioned but misguided fads of the 20th century: the Social Gospel movement and the marketing of WWJD paraphernalia. The problem with both is that they are based on WWJD and that is the wrong question.
The Gospels provide us with a rather clear record of what Jesus did -- healed the sick, preached, traveled, made disciples, etc. While we may also be expected to do these types of things, they were essential to Christ's earthly mission. If he were walking the streets of America he would likely still be doing the same thing. But is this what we should be doing? Not necessarily. We are not Jesus; we are his disciples. Our mission is not his mission but the mission he assigns us. The question we should keep constantly before us is "What Would Jesus Want Me To Do." But then WWJWMTD isn't as easy to embroider on a bracelet or fit on a bumper sticker.
Some people assume that Jesus was a carpenter while others (on better evidence I believe) think he was a rabbi. Whether he worked with wood or with words, I think it is indisputable that Jesus was a philosopher. As philosopher Dallas Willard wrote in his essay, "Jesus the Logician":
There is in our culture an uneasy relation between Jesus and intelligence, and I have actually heard Christians respond to my statement that Jesus is the most intelligent man who ever lived by saying that it is an oxymoron. Today we automatically position him away from (or even in opposition to) the intellect and intellectual life. Almost no one would consider him to be a thinker, addressing the same issues as, say, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and with the same logical method.
It truly is then, as Mark Noll once wrote, a "scandal" that evangelicals have failed so miserably in their commanded task of "putting on the mind of Christ." As a group we should be fertile ground for producing intellectuals. After all, we are disciples of the greatest thinker in history.
One of the most poignant and profound theological lessons about Jesus remains the one I first learned as a four-year-old:
Jesus loves me
This I know
For the Bible tells me so
I could strive for centuries and not be able to produce an insight so beautiful, concise, and true.
Thanks for letting your "Christ Haunted" blog be spooked by a more vivid sighting of the Son. And thanks for the reminder that Jesus loves us. Have a great day!
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Joe:
Major spam attack!
I think you have said a serious point indeed. I add just this: God is the only absolute king who can be trusted not to abuse absolute power.
Gordon
Joe,
I think it a mistake to call Jesus a philosopher. It is of the essence of philosophy that it seeks to make advance by marshalling rational argument. If there were direct insight into the truths that philosophy seeks to discover, there would be no philosophy.
Jesus himself had not need to establish God's existence by means of argument. Indeed I would think that he had no need to establish any proposition that we would now call 'philosophical' by means of rational argument. Moreover, I can now recollect nothing in the Gospels that can reasonably be classed as 'philosophy'. Jesus was no Socrates.
I do not mean to say that Jesus had no knowledge of philosophical matters. He surely did. What I mean to question is the manner by which he came possess such knowledge. Surely it was direct and not mediated by argument, and if so it is a mistake to call him a philosopher. The necessity of philosophy derives from the Fall; that which we should know directly and intuitively is now hidden, and we attempt to uncover it by means of argument. Had there been no Fall, there would have been knowledge but no philosophy.
Joe, lest you be accused of some heresy, you might consider revising the following with more precise terminology:
you wrote:
"While it may be difficult to determine what aspects of Jesus nature are attributable to his humanity or to his divinity..."
I think you mean to say "...determine what in his person is attributable to his humanity (human nature) or to his divinity (divine nature)..." He has two natures. He is one person.
Those are the orthodox terms anyway... as you know. Your original sentence confuses things a bit... if you want to be technical about it.
And I know you do.
As a philosopher, I have to disagree with both Joe and Franklin on the question of how appropriate it is to call Jesus a philosopher.
Of course, it all depends on what is meant by philosopher. Franklin, it seems, wants to say it means "rational argument; indirect/mediated knowing". Joe, it seems, wants to say it is "addressing the same issues as Kant did."
Well, Jesus is a philosopher by Franklin's definition as he used rational argument (not to say He believed there was religiously autonomous reason! or that "God's existence" was theoretically demonstrable!). And Jesus is not a philosopher by Joe's definition.
If we take Joe's definition, we're dealing with a matter of historically develop(ed)ing forms of thought. The fact is, even Aristotle and Kant are not philosophers in the same sense. There was a significant historical development in the kind of theoretical reflection we call philosophical.
Moreover, Jesus does not address the issue of the relation between say, perceiving, thinking and being. He does not address that issue theoretically or otherwise.
Jesus is however, THE "lover of wisdom" and we should be perfectly comfortable in affirming His cognitive prowess.
But as I consider "philosophy proper" a theoretical discipline, I don't consider Jesus a philosopher. But neither do I consider him a physicist, or mathematician, or aesthetician, or linguist, or historian, or chemist.
Here's a brain twister for orthodox Christians: Did Jesus have the ability to sin?
If yes, then how could he have been God, as God cannot sin?
If not, then how could he have been human, as all humans have the ability to sin? If he did not have the ability to sin, the idea that he lived a sinless life diminishes in importance as he had no option but to live a sinless life.
"In fact, Jesus hates sin more than [Fill in the name of an intolerant Fundamentalist preacher]."
Thanks for making me smile on a Monday. I love it when you get cheeky.
Joe, you should give Karl Barth at least partial credit for your thought #6. According to Christianity Today:
When asked in 1962 (on his one visit to America) how he would summarize the essence of the millions of words he had published, he replied, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so."
"Did Jesus have the ability to sin?"
Is that supposed to be profound, Ex-preacher? Like you just now thought of that? Like you think Christians haven't thought about the paradox before? Like maybe Christians have never wrestled with the doctrine of the Trinity? Thanks for waking me up. I knew there was something about that whole divine/human thing that was troubling me. Now I finally know what it was. Thanks. You have definitely found your calling: ex-preacher.
Rather than "what would Jesus do" or even "what did Jesus do", I prefer the question "What is Jesus doing?" and "What does He want me to do today?"...at least in my better moments.
And atheists are the ones with the reputation for being sarcastic, smart-mouthed and smarmy? Thanks for clearing that up, jd.
satan must have been barking up the wrong tree in the desert with Jesus..maybe the devil was confused too......'we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin' heb 4:15
i like the first point - I have always thought about Jesus as a view of God (John 14) but never as a view of how Adam was made to be before any temptations....THANKS
Joe: I so appreciate your comments. I like them all. I'm especially drawn to your opening lines, re: "Jesus haunted". Reminds me of Luther who suggested that of the Old Testament, more specifically, that the Old Testament is the cradle of the Jesus of the New Testament. I think, in many ways, we must live in such a way... kind of like John the Baptists, pointing to Jesus in expectation rather than continuously blathering on about him as if we possessed him. Post on!
Joe: I so appreciate your comments. I like them all. I'm especially drawn to your opening lines, re: "Jesus haunted". Reminds me of Luther who suggested that of the Old Testament, more specifically, that the Old Testament is the cradle of the Jesus of the New Testament. I think, in many ways, we must live in such a way... kind of like John the Baptists, pointing to Jesus in expectation rather than continuously blathering on about him as if we possessed him. Post on!
ex-preacher wrote: Here's a brain twister for orthodox Christians: Did Jesus have the ability to sin?
Will people in heaven have the ability to sin? Will they have thereby lost their humanity?
Your question hardly rates "brain twister" status since it assumes facts not in evidence.
I don't follow, wrf3. What "facts not in evidence" are being assumed? That Jesus existed? Or that he was sinless? Or something else?
Ex-Preacher wrote:
"And atheists are the ones with the reputation for being sarcastic, smart-mouthed and smarmy? Thanks for clearing that up, jd."
I guess that means you think I'm just a little bit smart?
Seriously, I would have treated your original post more seriously if I thought you were seriously being serious.
But I already knew your reputation.
Woah! Washington DC?! Go, Joe, go! Do visit Falls Church Episcopal and say hallo to my friend and mentor Steve Garber ...
ex-preacher wrote: I don't follow, wrf3. What "facts not in evidence" are being assumed? That Jesus existed? Or that he was sinless? Or something else?
Something else. I gave you the answer in the form of a question. A brain twister that answers yours, as it were.
Ex preacher-
Yes, Jesus had the *ability* to sin. Otherwise the temptation by satan wouldn't have been temptation. He *didn't* actually commit sin - that's what sets him apart.
He was tempted but didn't give in. Thus he was able to sin but sinless.
Anna,
Ex's question is not so easy to answer as that. You say that Christ was tempted. But this cannot possibly be so. If Christ had been tempted, he would have desired to possess things that it was not right for him to possess. (As Christ makes clear in his responses to Satan, Satan offers him things that he ought not take.) But the desire for such a thing is a sign of moral failure. A being that desires what it ought not have is imperfect. But of course Christ suffered from no such imperfection. Thus Christ cannot have been tempted.
But if he cannot have been tempted, it seems that he could not have sinned. It makes little sense to say that a being sinned but yet felt no temptation to sin. Sin of necessity comes after the temptation to sin.
Thus Christ cannot have sinned.
You might well respond that Scripture tells us that Christ was tempted and thus that he most surely was tempted. I respond that this at most shows that orthodox Christology does not square with the Gospels. Christ cannot both have been the God-man and have been tempted. Choose one or the other, but do not choose both.
"Christ cannot both have been the God-man and have been tempted. Choose one or the other, but do not choose both."
He was not a God-man. Jesus was a normal man, able to be tempted, but resisting temptation. Orthodox Christology certainly does not square with the gospels.
Franklin: The problem is how you define temptation. I think there's a difference between giving in to temptation and simply being tempted.
Example: On some days, when I'm tired and stressed, I'm tempted to salve my worried mind with a drink or two. The buzz would be nice. Now, I don't drink, even socially, so this idea comes a bit out of left field. When that idle thought flits through my mind, I reject it and move on.
The act of being tempted, in my case, is not the same as giving in to such temptation. I am able to give in to that temptation, surely, but I choose not to. Other temptations, I'm not so disciplined about. But certain ones, I can be "tempted" and still (in those brief moments) be "without sin." Temptation becomes sin when we engage it and act on it. Simply being tempted is not moral failure. Giving in to it is.
Jesus' fully human nature is necessary so that he could be a perfect High Priest (Hebrews 4-7) and sacrifice for us. If he wasn't able to sin, he's useless as a "second Adam" (Romans 5) to usher in redemption for mankind.
I half-heartedly wrote a paper on this "non posse peccar/posse non peccar" (sp?) debate in school. Now i wish i had done more rigorous research.
Dave,
So you think it entails no imperfection that you are tempted? This seems like a mistake to me.
What is a better, a more blessed state - to feel temptation and not give in, or not feel temptation at all? For myself, I would much prefer the latter. I do not want to be tempted to sin. Rather it seems to be better to know the good and simply do it, with no temptation to deviate from it.
Moreover, to feel temptation to do a thing is to feel desire to do it. But if one desires to do a thing that one should not, then even if one does not do it, still the faculty of desire within is defective. Perfect desire desires to do only what it's right to do.
While the God of the Bible is certainly knowable, as He has revealed much about Himself in the Bible, there is also much mystery about Him. So I can know God in what He has revealed about Himself but there is much about God that is beyond my understanding. I'm not uncomfortable with that, I like having a God that is too big for me to understand. I can see that He is presented in the Bible in three distinct persons yet is also presented as one, and the trinity is a mystery for me. It's beyond my ability to understand. Ex-preacher is correct in his statement that God cannot sin. He also cannot die (ex- you might want to save that to bring up at Easter). So while I can see that Jesus was born of a woman and died a flesh and blood human death and that He also claimed to be God and showed the power of God by many miracles, it's once again beyond my understanding how Jesus can be both man and God. Christianity is after all by faith. If you have to have God with no mystery, you will not have the God of the Bible, you will have a god that fits neatly in a box of your own making and no God at all only a false god again of your own making.
Is temptation a thing external to the tempted, or internal?
Franklin, are you saying that temptation cannot exist unless there is a possibility to succumb? So the temptation cannot exist on its own?
IBCP beat me to the punch.
The question, Franklin, then becomes: is temptation wholly internal, wholly external, or a mix of internal and external?
When you read Matthew 4 and see Jesus "tempted" in the wilderness, is he being tempted internally or externally? If it is even a mixture of both, does that mean that He has evil desires? [Another alternative, of course, is to disbelieve the text, but that's a whole 'nother issue.]
My understanding is that, for Christ (who had no sin nature), the source of that temptation was external only, but for us, temptation comes both from internal evil (sin nature) and from external provocation (the Enemy or devil). [Of course, whether or not one believes in an actual devil who does actual tempting may affect how one views temptation.]
I don't dispute the evil desires of the sin nature, not at all. What I dispute is whether, for example, the tendency or temptation to lash out in anger can just as much be called "sin" as the actual act of lashing out. (If one is able to control one's temper, is the almost-anger just as sinful as the fully-realized anger?) In James we read that desire "after it has conceived" produces sin, which then leads to death. I would argue that it takes not only temptation but acquiescence to or action upon that temptation, in order to sin.
I'm not trying to oversimplify. What I'm reading (perhaps mistakenly) from your comments is that tempted "equals" sin or sinful. Yet the NT Gospels say clearly that Jesus was tempted. So by that logic, Jesus was sinful. If He was sinful, he couldn't be God. And if one believes the Bible, that just doesn't fly.
Franklin -
One problem - if temptation requires imperfection, then Adam and Eve would never have sinned in the first place, since there was no imperfection before the fall.
Temptation is merely the suggestion to acheive a wrong end, or more often, the correct end in the wrong way (this was satan's temptation of Jesus). We can accept or reject the temptation. Temptation itself is not sin, and does not indicate the presence of imperfection. Our imperfection comes in our tendency to believe the lies and obey the suggestion (sin) - which Jesus never did.
Jesus was fully man and fully God. As God, He was unable to be tempted (for God neither tempts nor is tempted, as in James) but in His humanity He was able to be tempted. And so He was, but He did not believe the lies or obey the suggestions, so He did not sin, and became a second Adam, opening the way for us to salvation.
Make sense?
Nicely put, Anna. I was fumbling my way there.
To all,
Let me put my question as simply as I can: Did Christ feel tempted to do a thing that it was wrong for him to do?
If so, he seems less than perfect. Within myself, I take a felt temptation to do a thing (say, lash out in anger) as a sign of my imperfection, and I pray that the felt temptation will cease.
If not - if, that is, Christ felt no temptation though certain things were presented to him that might tempt others - then he seems profoudly unhuman.
As for Adam and Eve: perhaps the first hint of temptation within Eve was already the start of the Fall. On the view for which I've argued, sin first entered the world when Eve first felt temptation. How did it come to pass that Eve was tempted? How did this sin come to be? I have no idea, but neither do I think that those who hold that sin began in act and not in temptation have any explanation of sin's origin. Why would Eve, who was created perfect in kind, act sinfully? I have no idea. Why would Eve, who was created perfect in kind, have felt sinfully, i.e. be tempted? Again, I have no idea. The mystery here is a mystery for everyone.
To explain away a contradiction as a "great mystery" is a common response by religionists. You'll understand if I regard it as a complete cop-out. Christians like to use logic when it suits their purposes, such as arguing against other people's religious views, but run away from it when their own system is shown to fail under scrutiny.
How would you react if a Mormon or Muslim, when confronted with a blatant contradiction in their text or doctrine responded by saying that "it is a mystery which can only be accepted by faith"?
Sorry, Anna, but your last paragraph makes no sense. In the space of a couple sentences you tell us that Jesus was able to sin and was not able to sin.
I'm reminded of Ambrose Bierce's definition:
"Faith, noun. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
The problem with both ex's and FM's arguments is that they are trying to force their requirements of how things must be onto what the Bible teaches. God is under no obligation to fashion reality so as to not offend their sensibilities regarding what is or is not possible. Ex, Anna's last paragraph did make sense. Your problem is that you reject the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus Christ and then rule her reasoning nonsensical.
Could Jesus have sinned? Being a man with human nature, yes, He could have sinned. What would that have done to His divine nature? We aren't told, so no amount of speculating about it will accomplish anything. Was His ability to be truly tempted an imperfection in His nature, divine or human? No, He was and is perfect. Did He sin? No. Does our inability to say precisely what would have happened had He sinned mean that somehow ex has caught orthodox Christianity in some sort of gotcha trap? No, it means ex is too blinded by pondering things which never have been and never will be to be set free to live in what is.
Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it? We can go round and round with such useless questions never understanding that the question itself is absurd, trying to bridge two contradictory positions.
More important than the mere diversion, "Was Jesus capable of sinning?" is the biblical evidence that he was, due to His divine nature, uniquely capable of not sinning.
Secondly, tempting can mean, according to context, testing that reveals the underlying strength, as well as the more commonly understood inclination to evil. The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness was of the former variety.
Jesus appears to have experienced the full range of human emotion, as the author of Hebrews reminds us, without His will being effected by the desire to avoid pain and suffering.
Because they truly had free will,Jesus and the pre-fall Adam could sin. For them temptation was external. For everyone else, all of whom were born in Adams image, temptation is both internal and external. So although God can not sin or be tempted, Jesus in His humanity could. As for ex-preacher's blatant contradiction, whether he likes it or not it is still tied up in Jesus being both God and man. A concept beyond human understanding that I, perhaps because I have a relationship by faith with the God of the Bible, am willing to accept is simply beyond my understanding when ex-preacher is not.
Dear fellow Christians:
Perhaps you too were put off by my snarky comments to ex-preacher regarding Jesus' ability to sin. But do you not see that he is simply trying to play a gotcha game with something that is at the center of our faith and beyond our comprehension? Any Christian with half a brain has wrestled with the mystery of Christ being fully Man and fully God. I assume that you have and have chosen to believe. But I would not expect you to be able to explain it to me, and I'm a believer. What on earth would make you think that you could explain it to a non-believer; especially someone who calls himself ex-preacher? His very name tells us that he has examined what we believe and because of his superior insight has left the faith behind for those who are ignorant enough to believe it. The argument became, as I knew it would, a chance for him to say that we are illogical and hypocritical and anti-intellectual, when we are simply stating our belief in Christ. Can any of you tell me that you actually thought ex-preacher might see the logic of your arguments?
Joe:
I appreciated your comments about Jesus not being a Jewish Ghandi. I have quoted that verse about Jesus not coming to bring peace, "but a sword" in some discussions about war. It's usually when some Quaker-type tries to say we should turn the other cheek or never return evil for good. But of course, fellow Christians are quick to remind me that Jesus is not speaking about war nor advocating violence. But you must admit that it's pretty hard to take the edge off any sentence that talks about using a sword as the utensil of choice. Is there any way to take the violence out of that sentence? I don't think so.
I also like how you differentiate between Jesus and us. We are not Jesus. We cannot save the world nor those who live in it. We cannot do what Jesus did. We can't do what Jesus would do. I'm reminded of these thoughts when I see bumper stickers like: "Who would Jesus bomb?" or when confronted by pacifists. Jesus doesn't command us to lay down our arms and allow violent people to take our lives or the lives of loved ones. I once asked a Quaker (American Friends) what he would do if he and his family were attacked by someone intent on harm. He said that he would feel like he had failed to communicate adequately. Incredible.
The Bible makes it clear that Christ was tempted to sin, that is, He understood the attraction of sin to all mankind:
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15.
The point is that Christ is sympathetic to our condition since He understands our attraction to sin. Because He did not sin, He also serves as a perfect High Priest, representing us to the Father.
The difficulty, of course, is whether He could sin. Had He sinned, then He would not be the Christ, Messiah. Yet if He could not sin, He would have been a robot, unaffected by external issues. That is impossible.
He was Man, fully Man, with everything that Man consists of, including being tempted to sin. He was also capable of dying, and by most accounts, feared the ordeal of the Cross. And His death was an important aspect of his life as Man.
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
"For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrew 2:9-10
That word "perfect" in v. 10 is a curious word. The usual meaning is "complete". (Strong's Concordence). Without the suffering, He would have been incomplete. In this case, He would have not experienced the particular temptation to fear death.
He is also God, which meant He has the power to resist sin perfectly.
Which is the point that Hebrews makes. He had to be both Man and God, or He could not have been our perfect sacrifice, He could not be our Saviour, He could not be our mediator between us and the Father.
Amen, amen, and hallelujah.
jd - two things:
1. I understand what you are saying about ex-preacher simply sniping and not actually being interested in what we have to say. However, I disagree. Will (s)he ever post a 'mea culpa' on EO and apologize for being snarky and declare allegience to Christ as Lord and Savior? Maybe, maybe not. But can something we say strike a cord, and stick with him/her, and down the road bear fruit? Absolutely. That's what planting seeds is all about. Once upon a time, I was an athiest, and a really obnoxious one at that. I was far worse than I've seen ex-preacher be. What helped me become Christian? A girl I knew who was a school mate, who argued me on every point and showed me that Christians really do have a brain in their head that goes beyond 'Jesus loves me, this I know, for my mommy told me so.' She debated me for two years, and she actually moved away before I got saved. But it was her honest, intellectual discussion that softened my heart toward God. So I will never fail to give an honest answer to any critic, whether they seem to care or not. Who knows what's really going on inside?
2. As a 'Quaker-type' (actually, a Mennonite), I would challenge your assertion that we cannot be what Jesus was and do what Jesus did. What is Christianity if it isn't following Jesus' example? A set of rules we can never attain? A pining for a better future? No, it's an actual relationship with God through which He works in us 'both to will and to do His good pleasure' (Phil 2:13). What is His good pleasure? To love our enemies, bless those who curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who spitefully use and persecute us. (Matt 5:44) Does that sound like "Nuke 'em off the face of the earth" to you? Or even "Kill 'em dead"?
So, is Jesus command some kind of impossible pipe dream? Not unless the whole sermon is. Are you willing to excuse adultery and murder and failure to love? Then don't excuse hatred of our enemies either.
We ARE Jesus to those who see us - He lives in us and we live in Him. No, we are not sinless, but we are redeemed and we are called to strive to 'be perfect, even as [our] Father in heaven is perfect.'
You know, Muslims understand killing. It fits right in their worldview - the evil crusaders come to kill them. But love... that, they just don't get. When the 'evil crusaders' show up and love on them... lives are changed and hearts are turned to the true God, Jesus Christ. You should read some testimonies. They are truly amazing.
Amen and amen!!
jd & Anna: Just to inject a note of humor into the "Quaker-type" discussion. (By this point in my life I should know better than to do this--it usually gets me in trouble, but when I see a good punch line I just can't help myself.)
OK, so the Quaker woman (or insert Mennonite, Amish, or other favorite pacifist faith tradition here)hears a noise downstairs in the middle of the night. She awakens her husband and sends him to investigate. Meanwhile the thief is ransacking the silverware in the dining room when, from the top of the stairs, he hears the sound of a shotgun being cocked. He spins around to see the Quaker drawing a bead on him, as he says,"Friend, I mean thee no harm, but thou standest where I am about to shoot!"
jd, I understand your point about answering a fool according to his folly, and sometimes that is the appropriate response. I actually enjoyed reading your response to ex and didn't mean any disrespect to you by engaging his proposition more seriously.
Anna,
The difficulty with my understanding of Quaker-style pacifism is the refusal to defend innocent parties when a belligerant party is intent on harming them, EG, a burglar comes into my house with intent to harm my family.
Am I misunderstanding that sort of pacifism there?
Jesus is an excellent example of how we are suppose to be.
But just as important is how he told us to be. And the best place to start with the how is the Sermon of the mount, the Beatitudes to be more specific.
We are to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world and the beatitudes describe how to achieve this.
I think that we are especially poor at meekness. Just learning to let things go and not fret and to trust God is what meekness describes and I am just as guilty about not being meek as anybody else. I think we trust ourselves and our arguments and reason too much. Especially when it comes to politics. Non-Christians need to see Christians being meek (amongst other things listed in the Beatitudes of course).
IBCP-
This is kind of a surface answer to your question - for a really good treatment of it, please pick up John Howard Yoder's "What Would You Do". It's available on Amazon.com and may even be at your local library.
a) Most burglars do not come into your house to kill you. They come into your house to take your stuff. I am not advocating theivery, but it does not require a violent response.
b) Homeowners who are wounded/killed during a burglary have a surprisingly high tendency of being wounded/killed with *their own gun*.
c) There are not just two options, "Kill or be killed." That is a false dichotomy - actual real-life situations present many other choices, like 'Call the cops' or 'Run away'.
I don't intend this response to seem flip or perfunctory, but this is actually a pretty deep issue. For a better response, as I mentioned, do get John Howard Yoder's book. It's excellent.
Anna:
I'm certainly not excusing hatred of enemies and nowhere have I suggested that Christ condones that. Christ said to "To love our enemies, bless those who curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who spitefully use and persecute us." He did not say love those who kill you, bless those who kill you, do good to those who kill you, and pray for those who kill you. Why? Because you can't do those things if you're dead. That sounds flippant, but I'm truly serious. I believe you can follow Christ's commands to love, bless, do good, pray and then kill to defend yourself. As Joe wrote, Christ was no Jewish Ghandi. He comes in peace, but he has a sword. And please don't tell me it's the sword of the spirit. I know that. And I know that Christ does not advocate violence per se. But the sword passage quoted above (Matt. 10:34) certainly sounds violent doesn't it?
As for doing what Christ does. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we are to emulate Him and put on the mind of Christ and be like Him as much as possible. That includes the seemingly impossible demands of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm not sure if you missed the point I was making, and that Joe was making, or if you were responding to my treatment of ex-preacher. My point is that we cannot do what Christ did. We cannot save the world nor can we save sinners. We can only do what Christ wants us to do--our mission, as Joe called it. We must do what we believe is right according to scripture. That doesn't mean we should lay down our life to save others. But it might mean being willing to die for what we think is right--and fighting for what we think is right. That IS laying down your life for others.
I don't for one minute buy your idea that "kill or be killed" is a false dichotomy. It's that simple right now with Islamic fascists. They don't want your logic, your understanding, or your love. They want you dead. If you can't see that, it's a good thing you live here where you have the luxury of being a pacifist.
Ex-Preacher,
Christ had the ability not to sin. In other words, he had the same nature as Adam. But, unlike Adam, he made the right choice, and in doing so was the ultimate Paschal Lamb.
See the book of Romans for a complete treatment on this topic...specifically Chapters six, seven and eight.
Thank you,
Mark
1. "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone." James 1:13
2. "but [Jesus] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15.
3. Therefore, Jesus was not God.
Thanks ex-preacher, for proving jd's point. Anna, NOW are you convinced? There's a time and place for reasoned explanation, and a time and place for carrying out Christ's command in Matthew 7:6.
Believers who seek an explanation of a surface level potshot are willing to do things like compare Hebrew's use of the term "tempted" versus James' use of the same term, and see if they were actually talking about the same thing by the term. Ex-believer on the other hand is just raising senseless objections in an attempt to create confusion and division amongst the saints. May God have mercy on him.
jd -
Jesus did say to love those who kill you - who kills you if not your enemies?? Do you know the testimonies of the martyrs in Russia and in China, who loved their captors in Soviet prisons even as they were being killed? Do you know that some of those guards found Christ because of that extremely counter-intuitive love? That's Jesus at work!!
I'm sorry you see the situation with Islamists as 'kill or be killed'. I would put forward that there are other options. Certainly, I personally can love the Muslims I know rather than hating them. I have also read testimonies about 'tentmakers' who moved to Muslim countries and loved on people there and really opened their eyes to the real Christian message.
No Muslim will get saved if you shoot them. However, many Muslims have gotten saved because someone loved them. Are there those who will always want to kill us? Yes. What is our response? Love them anyway and pray for their salvation. Perhaps our death will be what it takes to show them Christ, like the examples set by our brothers and sisters in government prisons.
If that isn't worth dying for, what is?
That's it Kaffinator, if you can't defend your position, attack the person.
The great thing about the Bible is that it can be used to prove almost anything.
There are plenty of verses in the Bible, especially from Jesus, that teach absolute pacifism. Plus you have the example of the first 250 years of the church. Nearly all of the church fathers were strict pacifists. Rather than join with the Jews in defending Judea against the Roman occupiers in 70 AD, the Christians ran away. During the Bar Kochba Rebellion of 130 AD, Christians again refused to fight.
Then along comes Constantine and before you know, you have to be a Christian to be in the army. But wait, aren't Christians pacifists? This was a real dilemma until Augustine comes along to explain that it's okay for Christians to fight because there are two kingdoms, just war, etc. Ever since, most Christians have no problem justifying war, even to the extent of fighting a rebellion against a Christian (God-installed) king such as George III.
If you study slavery in the American South, you'll find that it was justified using the Bible. Also it was attacked using the Bible.
This week's Time magazine cover story asks the question: "Does God want you to be rich?" They give a list of Bible verses that say "yes" and another list of verses that say "no." Just take your pick.
Take any doctrine - role of women, organization of church, significance of baptism, free will vs. predestination, charismatic vs. non-charismatic, divorce and remarriage, death penalty, etc. - and you will find the BIble being quoted on all sides.
This helps explain why there are currently 33,800 denominations of Christians, each claiming to be the "True Church." There are actually more than that since many of those denominations are made up of feuding branches.
How is it that all the countries of the world can agree on the exact rules of soccer and chess, but it's hard to find two Christians who hold exactly the same views?
The irony in all this is Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17. That brings up other questions, like about God praying to Himself to do something that he knew wouldn't happen.
True to form, ex-preacher tries to get a rise out of sombody with a stale, reheated argument. In this case we have the penetrating insight that Christians sometimes don't agree on stuff. I'm ... I'm flabbergasted!
Whilst I attempt to recover from ex-preacher's tour de force, guess I'd better go ask my pastor why he claims our church is the only "True" one. Oh wait he doesn't.
Well, ex, at least in your last post you assume a more honest persona for your nom de guerre. Your interest was not in gaining insight into the nature of Christ, but to attempt to make others lose their faith or look foolish in comparison to your exalted intellect. When instead you receive many well-reasoned responses, all of which are consistent with each other even though given by different people who all hold what you consider to be doctrines incompatible one with the other, you flood the stage with all sorts of rantings which have nothing to do with the putative purpose of your original post. Very effective rhetorical device.
What happened to the good old days when Christians at least tried to give a thoughtful and kind response? It once was expected that atheists would have the better debating points, but Christians would win on niceness. Are you going to cede that as well? I respect your right to not engage me in rational discussion, but do you have to assassinate my character too?
In addition to how can Jesus be God and human, why is it that he chose to be baptized? How much sense does it make that Jesus, who is free of sin, decides to be baptized? The very act that humans do because of sin.
He was baptized (and was born to earth) to enter into our complete human experience because all humans have sinned and are in need of repentance. He came and entered into our sin so that in him (who remained sinless) we might become the righteousness of God(2Corinthians 5:21).
Although Jesus could not be tempted himself, he could see and experience what temptation is like for humans. Like the verse above says, he became sin for us. He was able to identify with us so that we could identify with him (reconciliation)
He came as a servant, not as a conquerer to cast judgment upon humanity. Because we are all sinners, we are called not to look at other peoples sin and cast judgment. We are instructed to instead look at our own lives and examine our own sinful life.
As tempting as it is to also judge expreacher (it other words take a bite of the apple of the tree of knowledge), I will instead notice the log in my eye to the dust in his. (By saying this it probably sounds like I am trying to better than those that do judge him, but really, I also see the log in my eye to the particles of dust in yours)
Tim -
Good question. Jesus chose to be baptized to set the example for us. Remember that it is not baptism, water, or any other human ritual or element that forgives sin. It is a relationship with God through the blood of Christ, which we proclaim publically through baptism. Notice that Jesus' baptism was the beginning of His public ministry? It was the public proclamation of His relationship with God and the beginning of His public work for God.
So it is, when we get baptized, we publically proclaim our relationship with God and begin to live that out for the world to see (if we haven't been already! Not eveyone gets baptized as soon as they are saved. Nonetheless, it is an important step to take.)
ex-preacher -
It takes guts to ad-hom people by accusing them of an ad-hom.
And even more to ad-hom someone by accusing him of falsely ad-homing someone else who has ad-hommed him.
If anyone here thinks ex is genuinely seeking rational discussion, please raise your hand.
Anna Brown,
Jesus being baptized is definitely about his relationship with God but I think that it is equally about his relationship with us. Jesus did not need to repent with God, we do. It was about Jesus identifying with our need to repent as well as an example (God, but also human). It was about him entering into our human experience.
Am I making sense?
Joe stated:
Christians believe, as the Nicene Creed states, that Jesus was both “true God” and “truly human.” We consider it axiomatic that Jesus is the only human that can claim to be the “true God.” But I think it could also be argued that Jesus is the only human that can claim to know what it is to be “truly human.”
I think that he is absolutely right, but Jesus knew what it was to be truly human as Adam was before accepting an apple from the tree of knowledge (Adam and Eve were the humans we were suppose to be before the fall). This is being human before we thought we could be our own gods which is mostly shown by judging (God's job) each other and looking to be better than others, instead of loving and serving as Jesus did.
Tim -
I definitely agree with your first sentence. The thing I honestly have a hard time with is, His relationship to us in what sense? In the sense of setting an example? Yes, but there seems to be more to it. He didn't need to repent for sin... so in what way do you think He 'entered into our human experience'?
I'm intrigued by the phrase, but I don't think I really understand what it means.
Ex-preacher -
If you wouldn't mind dropping me a line personally (my email's linked on my name), I'm curious how you became an 'ex-preacher' (if you are), or at any rate if you used to be a Christian and are now not, how that occurred.
Anna:
I have no doubt that Christian prisoners in hostile territory have been profound witnesses for our Lord. There's a great one in the Bible with Paul and Silas and the jailer who was going to kill himself until he found that the prisoners didn't escape. Solzhenitsyn was converted in prison by the powerful witness of an old man in the face of brutal conditions in the gulag. However, I'm quite sure that Solhenitsyn is not a pacifist. Amazing things happen when Christians are in desperate circumstances and they turn to the Lord.
However, you seem to have this notion that loving your enemies means that you can't kill someone who intends to kill you or someone you love. I would say love your enemies, but go ahead and kill them when they come at you with a scimitar. I'm sorry to sound so flip but your rhetoric has a little too much Kum-bay-a for me. Nowhere does Jesus say that if someone cuts off your head to turn your other head. I think turning the other cheek is more about the pride of saving face than the willingness to lose your head.
I truly believe, as you do, that Jesus' words about loving your enemies are revolutionary. They are meant to be followed. But you know what? I have a hard enough time just saying something nice to ex-preacher. I think Jesus had my attitude toward someone like him in mind when he said to love your enemies. I really don't think he meant us to make loving your enemies foreign policy.
You seem like a genuinely nice person, Anna. For various reasons, I would rather not engage in a personal email exchange. However, if you will go to the infidels.org forum section, then to the Secular Lifestyle Forum, you can click on "Atheists Testimony" thread. I'm on about page 3 I think. I go by the same "ex-preacher" moniker there.
Yes, I really am an ex-preacher. I have a B.A. in Bible from a Christian college, and an M.Div. and D.Min. from another Christian university. I was in ministry for about 12 years, and taught at a third Christian university (one with about 6,000 students) for three years before deconverting. The short version of the story is that I finally began honestly and thoroughly studying certain problem areas that I had long previously recognized. It was in part thanks to the internet because it enabled me to hear and read from viewpoints that I had never truly engaged. Due to my new convictions, I resigned my position and decided to get a PhD in US history.
I'm sure jokers such as Kaffinator and Cheesehead will find some smart-aleck remark to make about this, but it is the truth. I am completely sincere and like to think I'm of at least average intelligence.
Anna,
Some people emphasize the divinity of Jesus and others his humanity. Both are essential. Because he was fully human, realize that he was able to fully enter into our human experience. He laughed, he cried, he felt loss, he experienced the death of loved ones, he drank wine and he was tempted (by the devil as one example). He did this to identify with us and to bring redemptons. We as humans have a deep need to be understood, Jesus because of his entering into our human experience is able to relate to us in every way. He understands.
Jd,
My understanding is that Jesus commands is essentially telling us to not respond the same way as our enemy. Yes, we can defend ourselves but not in the same way that our enemy would. We are to always treat our enemy with infinite worth. We are to have a love and forgiveness for them that they would not understand. So no, you don't have to die, but you do have to respond differently then he/she would.
ex-preacher,
Amazing, my story is similar with a completely different result. No offense but I found the atheist arguments to be complete nonsense. In fact, it was secular humanist thought that pushed me to taking another look at Christ.
Regarding intelligence, who cares about intelligence? (in the scope of this discussion that is). One turn off about atheism is the elitism of its philosophy. Anybody is welcome to accept Christ into their heart. No special knowledge, no great intelligence needed, just the willingness to surrender your heart and to listen for God calling you to be in relationship with him. I am sorry that you have blocked him out, but I realize that is your choice.
For the record, I never commented on ex-preacher's intelligence. Only his intentions. As for his sincerity, let the reader decide.
Tim L wrote:
"My understanding is that Jesus commands is essentially telling us to not respond the same way as our enemy. Yes, we can defend ourselves but not in the same way that our enemy would. We are to always treat our enemy with infinite worth. We are to have a love and forgiveness for them that they would not understand. So no, you don't have to die, but you do have to respond differently then he/she would."
I don't mean to be facetious, but does this mean that if my enemy slaps me in the face I should stick my tongue out at him? It's different. I don't think your last post is very helpful or clear. Our response to our enemy should be different? My response to someone trying to kill me would be different in this sense: it would be quicker and have greater muzzle velocity. Is that different enough?
Ex-preacher -
Thank you for your kind words. In your testimony you mention a longer document that tells more about the specific issues you struggled with - would you send that to me? As an athiest-turned-Christian, I'm curious what made you go the other way. I did notice nothing in your testimony mentioned a personal relationship with God through Christ - was that part of your experience? Did you actually *know* the Guy?
jd -
Jesus did not mean for us to love some enemies but not others. Honestly, if you really loved a Muslim terrorist, would you kill him and send him to hell, or die yourself, go to heaven, and pray he would get saved in the process? If Jesus advocated killing those who were about to kill you, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because He never would have gone to the cross.
If my position seems Kum-bay-a, yours seems kind selfish. :-)
Anna:
You have just hit on the difference between your position and mine and made the distinction clear. You think that we should die like Jesus did and thereby save the life of someone. I don't believe we can do that and I don't believe Jesus calls us to do that. Certainly not me. We are to be like Jesus, but we are not Him and there's something of the Messiah complex in what you're saying.
I guess if you want to say that the philosophy "Kill or be killed" is selfish, then I will agree that I am selfish. But I would also be aliveish.
Anna,
I will need to dig out that document from an old computer, but I will try to send it to you within the next few days.
One of the common things that ex-Christians hear from Christians is that we were never real Christians or else we wouldn't have fallen away. Calvinists in particular refuse to accept our testimony since they believe it is impossible for anyone to fall away. I don't know how to convince someone that I was a real Christian. From everything I know and felt personally and from what I have read and heard from other Christians, my experience was as real as anyone else's. You ask if I really knew the Guy. How do you expect me to answer that since I don't believe the Guy exists? I certainly thought I had a "personal relationship with God through Christ." From my perspective now, I think that anyone who thinks they know God is deluding his or herself. That sounds harsh, I know, but that is my conclusion.
I've had this conversation with Christians - such as my mom. My mom will say "I don't understand how you can not believe. God is as real to me as you are." I ask her if she can physically see and hear God the way she sees and hears me, and of course she can't. So how does she know? She just feels his presence. It does no good when I explain that all sorts of people with completely different religious beliefs also claim to feel the presence of their god or other invisible power. I long ago decided that it is fruitless to try to dissuade someone of things they claim to feel. Years ago, while I was a Christian, I tried to convince a Mormon of the error of his ways. The problem was that he had had a personal visitation from a divine spirit. There is no way that rationality can compete with that. For those who want to have a rational dialogue, I'm ready. To those of all religious beliefs who claim to have had a mystical personal experience that is beyond the rational, I say "Good for you." I'm still waiting for my Damascus Road experience.
Ex> For those who want to have a rational dialogue, I'm ready.
Anna, I don't know if you're listening to me anymore, probably not because I seem harsh to Ex, but here goes anyway.
Ex-preacher says he wants a "rational dialogue" but what does he mean by that? After umpty-dozen years traveling in Christian circles, he has probably heard and analyzed every apologetic you could possibly offer, and those more than once. So keep in mind when he says he is looking for a "rational dialogue" it is not with the intent to resolve a difficulty in his mind. It is to create a difficulty in your mind by injecting enough doubt and disbelief that you might leave the faith and share his fate.
I could quote you a couple of rafts full of scripture that specifically instruct the Christian response to ex-believer and his approach. But I trust that you know where they are and what they command.
This doesn't mean that Ex’s objections or arguments (recycled as they are) don't deserve answers. We should not leave any doubt in the minds of those who are silently lurking. I commend you and Tim and JD for your efforts in this regard and hope they do someone some good.
Ex-preacher, I respect you. My way of respecting you is to acknowledge that by your education and background, you have earned the right to make a willful choice to leave the Christian faith. I'm not going to insult you by pretending you're merely a backslidden brother who needs nothing more than “niceness” to get you back on track. You have willfully set yourself up as an enemy of faith in Christ. Therefore, my respect for you and the position you have chosen requires that I address you as an enemy.
jd,
Honestly, you are just trying to be argumentative and facetious. I am not going to tell you specifically to respond. I as sure that you can understand by the Beatitudes as well as other sermons by Jesus that you are to respond in love to your enemies. This is different then how your enemy would respond. I do not believe that we are told to be pacifist to the harm of others around us but that doesn't mean to respond in the same way that they would. We are called to respond differently. Take what you have learned, listen to God's voice and decide for yourself how to respond.
Kaffinator:
You [ex-preacher] have willfully set yourself up as an enemy of faith in Christ. Therefore, my respect for you and the position you have chosen requires that I address you as an enemy.
Ex-preacher is your intellectual, and perhaps spiritual, opponent. He is your rival in the marketplace of ideas and ideologies and creeds.
But how is is he your enemy?
Ex-preacher is decent, rational, honest, thoughtful, and patient. He is an educated, civilized, and respected family man. He is the embodiment of the most important Christian virtues (leaving aside faith). Do you really mean to make him your "enemy", or even just to think of him in those terms?
All people of good will are brothers and sisters. Jesus scorned disbelief, so maybe he would have disagreed with me about this. Maybe he would rejected unbelievers and treated them along the lines of your "enemy" rhetoric.
But if his compassion were to fail him on this point, would you really want to emulate him? Isn't the overriding principle of Christianity to love one's neighbor as oneself -- is there really an asterisk saying "forget about the atheists though"?
Actually Ex- you don't don't say "Good for You", you say 'I'm going to keep railing on you and try and make you feel silly, stupid, and ridiculous until you finally give up on your beliefs." That's a lot different. And, you've admitted before you're on a mission to "set people free", not to learn anything about Christians or Christ.
It is possible to murder one's own character...
Now, go to your keyboard and write that I'm mean spirited, and take the highroad where you'll reload for your next less than honest onslaught.
JD,
However, you seem to have this notion that loving your enemies means that you can't kill someone who intends to kill you or someone you love. I would say love your enemies, but go ahead and kill them when they come at you with a scimitar.
Can you expand on that a bit? Typically, when someone kills a person that they claim to love we conclude that they are a) insane like Andrea Yates or b) dishonest about their claim to love that person.
Clearly, the person coming at you with the scimitar does not love you. He probably hates you, or at a minimum doesn't give a damn about you. If you kill him, in what sense can you claim to love him?
Anna:
You have just hit on the difference between your position and mine and made the distinction clear. You think that we should die like Jesus did and thereby save the life of someone.
Respectfully, I don't think that is a good summary of Anna's position. Her position seems to be that we might die like Jesus did and thereby avoid doing irreparable harm to the person that we are commanded to love. Whether or not that person will later be saved is in Gods hands.
On the other hand, we might not die. That is uncertain. However, we can be certain about whether or not we will kill.
Hi Matthew,
> But how is is he your enemy?
He has deliberately chosen to oppose my King. As I said, I respect his ability to thus choose and make an enemy out of himself.
> Ex-preacher is decent, rational, honest, […]
I apparently do not know him in the intimate way you do so I am not in a position to extol any virtues he may or may not have. Here, on this thread, he appeared with a certain intent, an intent that strikes me as underhanded and deceptive and which I therefore oppose.
> All people of good will are brothers and sisters. Jesus scorned disbelief, so maybe he would have disagreed with me about this. Maybe he would rejected unbelievers and treated them along the lines of your "enemy" rhetoric.
If you want to know what Jesus said about unbelievers or treated people, there are plenty of Bible verses on the topic if you care to look.
> But if his compassion were to fail [Jesus] on this point, would you really want to emulate him?
That’s a funny thing to ask. To answer it I would have to assume possession of a higher standard by which I could actually judge Jesus Christ. I possess no such thing.
> Isn't the overriding principle of Christianity to love one's neighbor as oneself -- is there really an asterisk saying "forget about the atheists though"?
You assume I’m not showing love to Ex-preacher simply because I’m not being all fluffy-bunny nice to him. On the contrary, I’m showing as much or more respect than anyone else here by accepting that he actually believes the statements he makes (e.g. believers are deluding themselves).
Let me pose you a hypothetical. Let’s say I see a guy bottle up some arsenic and then go out to a street corner and start hawking it as a health tonic. How would you suggest I show love to such a person? By being nice to him? By pretending he’s really my buddy? By not warning others to abstain from his poison?
Nick:
What I meant was that if I were capable of loving a scimitar-wielding terrorist, I would love him until the very moment that he came at me with intent to cleave me asunder. In other words, I believe in killing in self-defense. If not killing, at least maiming to prevent invasion of my personal space. What's interesting is that for many scimitar-wielding "enemies" maiming would probably be good enough. For Islamic fascists, maiming will only slow them down. They will come back later so it's better to kill them the first time.
Seriously, I admire Anna's belief that she would rather die than defend herself or her loved ones. I say belief because it is nothing more than a belief. We don't know if that belief has ever been tested. We don't know if anyone has ever tried to kill her because she wouldn't confess allegiance to Mohammed, or if confronted by such a choice whether she might actually get angry and fight back. My point is that it's admirable to have such convictions if they are truly based on Christ's commands to love our enemies. However, those personal beliefs should not dictate the foreign policy of the United States. That's because most citizens of this country selfishly want to live rather than die at the hands of someone like Zarqawi.
jd-
I would not at all say I have a 'Messiah' complex. I'm not saying my death is salvic at all... I'm saying it's following Christ's (and Stephens, and Peters, and ...) example. Did Stephen throw the rocks back? No. Dying for our faith is part of what we may well be called to do!! Don't you see that Islamists EXPECT us to kill them? It just feeds their insanity. But if we are willing to die, if we love them... that turns their world upside down. And don't forget - real life always has more than two choices. "Run away" is another way of being 'aliveish' (a cute phrase). I'm not saying to hug suicide bombers. But I *am* saying not to kill them.
Nick -
Yes, thank you. If I purposefully kill someone who is unsaved, I have ended their chances to know God with my own hands. If I die, not only do I get to go to heaven (like early out from school, only better!!), they have another chance to accept Christ. I'll take that.
ex-preacher -
I'll look forward to receiving that document. The reason I asked if you actually 'knew the Guy' was that I know a lot of "ex-Christians" who honestly never had a concept that God was someone they could know. They got Christianity confused with Church-ianity, lost faith in the church, and thus didn't give Jesus another thought. My mom falls in this category, although I haven't found a useful way to explain that to her yet.
I'm all about rational dialogue as long as it's an honest seeking for Truth. I remember, when I was an atheist, how annoying I found it when Christians would go all doe-eyed on me and sigh that 'They just know in their hearts it's true.' Now, I do have that kind of relationship with God at this point, but that doesn't preclude rational discussion. :-)
Kaff -
You know, there have been many times when I wished I could transfer part of my life experiences to other people, and this is one of those times. If you take ex-preacher and make him 100X more obnoxious and impossible to talk to, that was me 12 years ago. And here I am today. Please hear me: no matter what an atheist says or does, they deserve to be given honest dialogue and discussion. You never know what phrase, thought, or idea may lodge in their heart and grow. You don't know how much of their talk is bluff and how much that actually believe. At the least, we are called to love them and present the Truth, enemy or no. Christ calls us to love our enemies, remember? That's why I'm in trouble with jd right now... :-)
I'm am well aware that satan my use this as occasion to try to shake my faith. However, I believe strongly enough in God and in the rigor of our beliefs that I am confident I will be ok. I am not someone who fears honest questions. The most intellectual minds throughout the ages have tried to disprove Christianity... and they have all failed. Thank you for your concern, though. I will keep your warnings in mind.
The problem with your 'health tonic' example is that the hawker lies about what's in the bottle. Ex-preacher has been absolutely straight about where he's coming from.
I'm being fluffy-bunny nice?? I thought I was just being honest...
Lemon -
I don't know if you're a Christian, but if you are, please know that sniping is not helpful. At all. For anyone.
Ok, I think that covers everyone!
Hi Anna,
I appreciate your sentiments toward Ex-preacher and wholly concur that atheists deserve a chance at honest dialogue and discussion. I have enjoyed and profited from such dialogues in the past and I hope to again in the future. But I am going to stick to my original assessment, shared by jd, that honest dialogue and discussion is not what ex-believer seeks. In this he is similar to other hardened apostates. He is looking for a platform and revelling in his betrayal of Christ provides one. You or I may have been obnoxious atheists but I'll hazard that in your case, like mine, we simply had not been exposed to the true and living gospel. Ex on the other hand has carefully evaluated the claims of Christ, tasted the gifts of the spirit, and rejected them with finality. If he doesn't fit Hebrews 6:4 I don't know who does.
Jesus told us there is a time to shake off the dust and sow in more profitable fields. I certainly do not presume to tell you this is what you should do in this case but I hope you've at least considered the possibility. If you have then by all means go for it.
And, you know, there's nothing WRONG with fluffy bunnies per se.
Kaffinator,
[Ex-preacher] has deliberately chosen to oppose my King.
Ex-preacher is not opposing your King. He is stating that your King is not his King. He is also inviting you to reject your King for the same reasons he has rejected him.
Now if Jesus were a temporal King, like Louis XIV or George III, then what ex-preacher is doing would constitute opposition. But Jesus is not (and did not want to be) a temporal King -- he wanted to reform/re-make men's hearts and souls.
Therefore ex-preacher is not guilty of treason, of being an enemy -- he is just engaging you in a religous debate, which is what the New Testament documents Jesus as doing 1,975 years ago. Ex-preacher is just being a preacher. His style is more Socratic and analytic than the parables and occasional mysticism of Jesus, but he is doing fundamentally the same thing.
To label this preaching as "opposition" to the King is to elevate a religious dispute to a power struggle, even though Ex-preacher disavows the goal of King-ship and raises no Kings in the place of Jesus. He is not your enemy, he is a teacher or a rabbi who is trying to share with you a different perspective.
I apparently do not know him in the intimate way you do ...
I don't know ex-preacher at all other than from what he has written at the Evangelical Outpost. But if what he writes is true and sincere, and I don't have any reason to doubt it, than my description of him is very likely to be accurate.
... I would have to assume possession of a higher standard by which I could actually judge Jesus Christ. I possess no such thing.
Here's a higher standard: all persons of good will are brothers and sisters. We both agree that Jesus might not agree with that when it comes to un-believers. If Jesus doesn't agree with it, then Jesus is wrong.
Let’s say I see a guy bottle up some arsenic ...
Ex-preacher is not peddling arsenic any more than you are. If he were, then I would stand by you in denouncing him and demanding his head on a platter.
Listen, Kaffinator, if you are right and Ex-preacher is wrong about Jesus, then there is absolutely zero grounds for you to feel threatened by him.
And if Ex-preacher is the one who is right, then you owe him an apology for comparing him to a deadly quack.
Cheers,
Matthew
Anna, the only point I disagree with you on is the "honesty" of ex's question. If by "honest" you mean that he doesn't know the answer and would like to learn from others or test out ideas he has on others, then no, his question was not honest. Which does not mean that it shouldn't be given an honest answer. (If you scroll up you will see where I addressed his question seriously.) But manifestly his purpose is to spin some sophistry to "prove" that the Bible is wrong about Jesus. God is clear on the identity of the man who says in his heart,"There is no God!" Sometimes we should answer a fool according to his folly; sometimes we should not answer a fool according to his folly; and sometimes we should not engage with a fool at all lest onlookers be unable to tell who is who. ;)
Ex threw a fine little insult my direction earlier, obviously not remembering that a few months ago I had almost exactly the same conversation with him as you are presently having. By his own admission his main reason to be here is to try to stir up a good row now and again. That's fine, but it is a bit of a stretch to say that he has any honest questions about the veracity of Christianity. Hopefully God will use his contacts here or elsewhere to call him to repentence. Meanwhile I wish you godspeed in talking with him.
On to another point. Regarding pacifism, I believe that as head of my household and protector of my family it would be my duty to dispatch anyone who I thought was about to attack my wife or children, or myself, for that matter. If the proverbial intruder were in my house in the dead of night I would not engage him in dialogue to see if he was there to rape and kill, or merely to burgle. I have Amish friends (used to buy milk from them at cheese factory I once owned) who are, of course, strict pacifists. I respect their position; I understand where they get it from; I respect them for their beliefs; and I don't think they love their families less than I love mine because they would not be willing to defend their families to the point of death. They feel what they believe to be a higher calling.
Having established that Christians of good will can make sound and convincing arguments both ways about how Christ's example/commands can be applied to individuals in their conduct, I am far less convinced when I see people try to take Jesus' example/commands to us as individuals and apply them to nations. For a nation to adopt a strict pacifist position without some other more powerful nation standing ready to defend it and being the strongest horse in the contest, would result in that nation ceasing to exist in very short order. Jesus taught much about how individuals are to live. He said next to nothing about how nations are to be governed.
Of course, also on another level, a pacifist who lived in a society where there were not "rough men standing ready to do violence on their behalf" in the form of some sort of constabulary would have a life that could best be summarized as "nasty, brutish, and short."
OK, enough from me for now.
Hi Matthew,
So, let me get this right. You’re telling me what I get to consider opposition or not, you dictate the “higher standard” I ought to apply (to judge Jesus the Christ no less), you tell me what and who I’m supposed to be threatened by or not, and you demand my apology to someone else for the terrible wrongs of drawing an analogy you didn’t like.
And here I thought we Christians were supposed to be the preachy ones.
Hey there, Kaffinator,
You got it pretty much right, except the part about "dictating" a higher standard.
I'm actually asserting a higher standard, based on the merits. There's no force involved.
Peace,
Matthew+
JD
Seriously, I admire Anna's belief that she would rather die than defend herself or her loved ones. I say belief because it is nothing more than a belief. We don't know if that belief has ever been tested.
Sure, and we can pray that it never is. However, we do know that many Christians have been tested in that way, and the martyrs include many who were willing to die rather than break Jesus's command to love their enemies. In fact, that is a significant difference between the Christian martyrs and the terrorist "martyrs" who die while killing.
My point is that it's admirable to have such convictions if they are truly based on Christ's commands to love our enemies. However, those personal beliefs should not dictate the foreign policy of the United States.
Yes, that's why many Christian pacifists are ambivalent about the role of Christians in the state. Paul describes the state as an agent of God's wrath in Romans 13, but immediately before that, in chapter 12, he instructs Christians to embody God's mercy and love.
cheesehead:
Of course, also on another level, a pacifist who lived in a society where there were not "rough men standing ready to do violence on their behalf" in the form of some sort of constabulary would have a life that could best be summarized as "nasty, brutish, and short."
We also know, historically, that the early Christians and the early Anabaptists lived in a society where rough men were standing ready to do violence to them. Both groups trusted God rather than other rough men, both groups were blessed by God, and both groups were a very powerful witness.
Very well then Matthew, now that I understand you, my points in response are:
First, you have no basis for instructing me in who or what I should consider opposition. If I use the term “opponent” or “adversary” or “enemy” I mean to say, something along the lines of “someone who stands diametrically opposed to the purposes which I pursue”. For you to step in and declare the ultimate content of both his and my perspective, such that it narrowly misses your highly specific notion of what ought to be meant by the term "enemy" is both presumptuous and pedantic.
Second, you have no basis for instructing me in what constitutes a “higher standard” and the definition you propose is seriously lacking. Who determines what “good will” is? Given the accusations and judgment you’re hurling at me, I can only suppose you believe I lack this ineffable quality, while Ex-preacher possesses it. I disagree with this assessment and am joined by others. Anna remains stubbornly optimistic. In other words, your standard produces a stalemate unless something or someone is given authority to judge, an authority I respectfully decline to cede to you.
Third, you are correct that there are no grounds for me to feel threatened by him. Whoever suggested the contrary?
Fourth, the purpose of my arsenic peddler analogy was not to defame Ex-preacher but to ask you a question. A question you didn’t even attempt to answer.
Fifth, this particular conversation is rapidly becoming no fun at all. Ex-believer was wise to abandon it. Therefore I propose we each do something better with our time than engage in it.
Hi Kaffinator,
... the purpose of my arsenic peddler analogy was not to defame Ex-preacher but to ask you a question. A question you didn’t even attempt to answer.
Here's my answer:
If someone is pushing arsenic, then you are quite right not to be buddies with him. Showing that person "love" is not the right priority -- the important thing is to stop him from hurting people.
That's why I said I would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in denouncing Ex-preacher if I thought he were peddling some kind of arsenic. However, he is doing nothing of the sort -- he is just using his personal Socratic method to challenge your beliefs and engage you in a religious debate. A civil religious debate is something no Christian need be afraid of.
And wasn't that your point after all, that you are worried about the consequences of Ex-preacher standing up for his disbelief? Don't be so fearful of civil debate: the truth emerges, one way or another, and we should all embrace the truth.
If I use the term “opponent” or “adversary” or “enemy” I mean to say, something along the lines of “someone who stands diametrically opposed to the purposes which I pursue”.
I concede that Ex-preacher is your opponent when it comes to your goal of promoting faith in Jesus. I deny he is your opponent in the higher cause of seeking and teasing out the truth. Instead, he is your ally.
Given the accusations and judgment you’re hurling at me, I can only suppose you believe I lack this ineffable quality, while Ex-preacher possesses it.
I'm sorry I've come across that way. If I thought you were not a person of good will, I would not have bothered talking to you about all this. It is because you are a person of good will that I ask you to consider Ex-preacher your brother.
Who determines what “good will” is?
Good question.
Short answer: good will is striving to help a person, and striving not to hurt a person.
Long answer: It's not always obvious what good will is and what it isn't. That's why conversations like this are worthwhile. But most of the time it seems to me that a consensus on the definition of good will is possible. It's just that sometimes, good will takes a back seat to other priorities.
... you are correct that there are no grounds for me to feel threatened by [Ex-preacher]. Whoever suggested the contrary?
You did, by calling him your enemy and by comparing him to the arsenic peddler. Someone with your confidence in your beliefs should probably have the serenity to accept the good-faith debate that Ex-preacher offers you without labelling him as a n