ANZAC, Virginia and the Hydra Heads of Violence
Violence, like a multi-headed hydra, surrounds us.
In one sad week we had a mass shooting at Virginia Tech, USA that rivaled Australia’s notorious Port Arthur massacre; more suicide bombers in Baghdad, Iraq; the Palestine/Israel violence took the life of a kidnapped BBC journalist; and preparations for Australia’s (and New Zealand’s) observations of ANZAC Day fill the airwaves.
Some say that the problem with violence is that it solves nothing. I think that adage is wrong. I believe humanity’s problem with violence stems from the the truth of a different adage “violence begets violence”.
I heard a comedian defend the invasion of Iraq by saying “violence solved the second world war” and I couldn’t disagree. If your ultimate aim is regime change then violence can be one ruthlessly efficient way to achieve that goal.
Violence put an end to Germany’s Third Reich, but would Hitler ever have grown to be head of a democratic country if there hadn’t been a World War One? Many historians doubt it.Violence has put an end to Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, but that nation is now caught in the uncivil teeth of civil war.
There are some things that violence can ’solve’. But like the mythical hydra that grows one or two more monstrous heads for each one chopped off, violence brings forth the cancerous mutations of more violence that is even harder to put down.
The problem with violence is not its ends but the method itself. It can ’solve’ problems, but it is such a blunt instrument it creates more problems along the way, including damaging those who perpetrate it.
This is seen literally in the individual: the loyal young Australian bleeding out on ANZAC cove, the desperate suicide bomber making an ultimate cry for self determination, the deranged gunman claiming his last victim - himself.
It can also be seen in our societies: the courted hoard applauding a bloody war or the normalising of violence that occurs when baring arms becomes a right.
Shane Claiborne, author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical, made some insightful comments after the Virginia Tech shootings about why violence begats violence. He said it killed the image of God.
We read the news through acts of violence rather than the hidden acts of love that keep hope alive. But there is a common thread in many of the most horrific perpetrators of violence that begs our attention – they kill themselves.
Violence kills the image of God in us. It is a cry of desperation, a weak and cowardly cry of a person suffocated of hope. Violence goes against everything that we are created for – to love and to be loved – so it inevitably ends in misery and suicide.
When people succumb to violence it ultimately infects them like a disease or a poison that leads to their own death.
Violence is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alike. Weapons and other instruments of war can amplify that voice so that the most powerful, most cunning or most determined perpetrator can have its way. But violence does not bring redemption, it doesn’t transform lives in a way that encourages wholeness.
When Jesus told one of his disciples “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”, he was neither cursing people, nor being a soothsayer. He was reflecting on the self-destructive path of choosing violence as the way to ’solve’ the world’s problems.
For the mythical hydra to stop its cycle of violence, it had to keep its wounds. In the story the hero Hercules cauterises its open necks, so it kept its scars rather than grow new heads.
So too, we need to be reconciled to the woundedness of our human condition and stop seeking to solve our own failings or the failings of others with violent solutions.
Maybe this is what a wise prophet meant when he is said of God’s suffering servant: “by his wounds we are healed.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
yawn, the formal equivalence versions all say the same thing.
The men were with the said animals. a bit of archeology and history would have told you that.
Thanks for telling us a whip and overturning tables isn’t a violent act!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Wow, homer is being condescending yawn
how about this idea Homer, since I spent lots of times on a ranch with cattle, I am quite familiar that if you are with your livestock, and someone begins to move them along, you follow along with them in order to keep them from scattering. So if Jesus was driving out the cows and sheep, you think the men would have stayed behind and said, wow, all our sheep are gone? Brilliant thinking.
How come Jesus didn’t over turn the bird cages Homer?
Once again, someone warps Jesus to fit their violent agendas rather than be renewed by the love of Christ, and His kingdom.
rev
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Homer you ask me to compare an AQ terrorist with just war theory. Wouldn’t engaging in such comparisons put me at risk of being enrolled in one of your morality correction classes?
I can’t see how your comments relate to what I wrote about anyway. Have you sought to understand what I was saying? Could I express myself more clearly for you another way?
I was saying that violence can have good or bad objectives, it can have just or unjust ends, it can be directed to solve all kinds of problems, but the method itself is too costly and kills off the life-affirming image of God.
I still maintain that AQ and ANZACs both chose to use lethal force. What do you think is silly about that comparison?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
oh dear,
Yeah I grew up in the county as well. bully for that.
Tell me rev what does mark write about.
There are men with the animals ready to give them to the people who have paid the money.
If Jesus is using a whip he has to be very accurate to merely hit the animals.
He ain’t participating in no peaceful exchange!!
Nigel,
one was just and one is not. they aint equivalent
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
So Homer, you grew up in the country? Did you ever heard cattle? See I have used goads, electric goads, sticks, and ropes, and you know what, I never once even got close to hitting someone. And we worked at one place where people came in, picked which cow, pig or sheep they wanted and we then killed it, skinned it, and quartered it, they did the rest. So there was lots of customers, lots of livestock, and guess what Homer? Not once did I accidently hit one of the customers. I guess Jesus must have been as accurate as I am. And does Mark say Jesus killed some one? No. Did he say Jesus struck someone? No doesn’t say that either. Did he declare war on the temple? No, not that either. Hmmmmm Guess that is justification for war, great scholarship their Homer, Carson has taught you well.
rev
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Homer,
If you accuse me of saying AQ are as just in their objectives as the allies were in their objectives in the Second World War then of course that sounds silly - BUT I SAID NO SUCH THING.
Now have you sought to understand what I was saying? Could I express myself more clearly for you another way?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Emma,
I am not arguing Homer’s point nor did I say Jesus killed anyone in the Temple. You said:
But let’s remember..one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist
This is one of the greatest bits of morally relativistic crap that is out there in the media today. What’s more, terror is a means, freedom is an end. To equate a means with an end is logically inconsistent as well.
Nigel,
You said:
Violence is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alike
Soldiers don’t chose violence. They are authorised to use force within cirtain constraints by the state for the purposes of defence (yes that’s why we call them Defence Forces) for the greater good.
Terrorists/solo shooters are not state actors, they do not hold any moral or legal authority, they do not operate under any constraints, they kill indiscriminately: civilians - men, women, children included (and that is why it is very dangerous to have the likes of Hezbollah or Hamas be given state authority) and their purpose is to instil terror to achieve some selfish end.
Rev,
You said:
Ananais and Saphira were never said to have been killed by God, I understand that there is great case for this interpretation, but it is not explicit in scripture. Same with Herod. There is someone else the bible tells us comes to steal, kill and destroy.
Peter (Acts 5) talking to Ananias and Sapphira:
Who or what killed Ananias and Sapphira and why in your view?
Peter (earlier in Acts 12):
Herod (later in Acts 12)
Who or what killed Herod and why in your view?
Just asking.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
hmm
nigel it is pity you do not write about what I said.
let us see what would happen when someone would come to the temple.
depending on the money they would be directed to the animal. Someone would be there.
They would be then led to where the sacrificing would be done.
In other words there are a fair number of people around.
Strangely enough this is what the archaeologists tell us.
golly gee how about that.
Jesus is wielding a whip. getting rid of the animals with a fair few people around and he was no expert.Only rev could bring up a red herring of Jesus not killing anybody.
no-one except him and the post-modern woman has brought that up.
however Jesus was indulging in violent but righteous conduct
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
hi abtruth, sorry was at work and couldn’t post. there’s nothing worse than reading signposts and not being able to post! I believe in absolute truth, and I do think we can have access to it…but I think that happens much more rarely than we think it does. I guess I’m wary of anyone who claims to know the absulte truth an anything, because I’ve heard the claim so often, and usually it’s just so people can sound like they have a bit of authority on whatever opinion they’re peddling…eg tithing or whatever.
Can we know truth objectively? That’s a really tough philosophical question, beacuse everything we say, do and think is filtered through our own experiences. I would say I know Jesus is the truth. But claiming to know the truth and then using that to justify a certain action - eg violence - well that sits uneasily with me.
anyway I think we’re getting into ethics territory here, about violence being justified or unjustified…a friend who’s studying theology explained to me that there are three kinds of ethics. Virtue ethics, black-and-white ethics like it’s wrong to kill no matter what the circumstances, or homosexuality is wrong or whatever - pente Christians are very fond of virtue ethics - then there’s consequentialist ethics, for example I think lying is wrong but I will tell the Nazi officer there isn’t a Jew in my house because I’m preventing a much worse scenario, that is murder, and community ethics, which is say I belong to a cannablist trube I do not consider eating flesh wrong even though a person living in a western society would say it is wrong.
my point is that depending on what ethical view we may have about violence, we will probably twist the truth to make it fit. Iraq is a prime example of consequentilaist ethics that the ends justifies the means. But i think if the “means” we’re talking about involves taking a life, well, that’s pretty serious.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Interesting discussion.
I’m not taking sides with Homer but Jesus driving the animals and moneychangers out of the temple was a violent act, no matter how you want to split the hair.
Jesus was imposing His will at that time on other people - that is what I would understand as being an act of violence - whether only the animals got hurt or not, or no-one got hurt is a moot point.
If Jesus wanted to hurt somebody He could have, in the same way that when the Pharisees were out to get Him at various time there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell he would be got - He was the perfect person - He could do whatever He wanted and no-one could stop Him.
I say again - Jesus imposed His will in this story in a way that He did not do at any other time that I can think of in the Gospels and it was in righteous anger.
There seem to be a number of points rolled up together in this conversation which is not contributing much any clarity:
1) Is there such a thing as righteous anger;
2) What are the potential righteous outflows of this;
3) With respect to violence is there a just place for a Christian to use violence - that is to impose their will over another - the physical limitations placed on this conversation I think are a red herring and don’t acknowledge what violence is - as one who as a kid was on the receiving end because big bastards wanted to pick on smaller, weaker, richer or poorer ones I know what violence is, and its not just physical;
4) Is there a difference in our normal day to day stuff as opposed to being summoned to war?;
5) If the war is unjust e.g. Iraq - what scope does a Christian have to object, not go etc
6) What is the difference between spiritual and human warfare?
Now in all this I think I have more sympathy with Rev’s position if only because I think from what I have read of your comments it has been a bit of your life’s work to try and come to grips with this issue and live it out. I’m not saying that the rest of you haven’t - so don’t take offence.
However I think I disagree with Rev even though I may not have a particularly well constructed argument. The bases of my position are:
1) Yes I acknowledge Jesus is the supreme example for us to follow, however I can’t cut myself from the rest of Scripture - I don’t the rest of it as less relevant or not as important;
2) God himself used violent acts or commissioned them through Biblical history - very often the reward for unrighteousness was a violent end;
3) Solomon who I accept as the wisest person to have walked this planet bar Jesus said there is a time to kill.
I agree that our response in the first instance often is to go a violent response, and the second, third fourth etc. I think in most instances it would be best to go to some other response, but I think is a time….
That is when we had better be sure we are living in the moment and the Spirit, lest we make the wrong choice. (Rev I already know what your response will be and that’s fine by me)
Cheers
MN
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Add another issue: should Christians become soldiers? If so, how or what should their response be if the are put into something which they cannot support as a Christian - given that states are essentially secular and don’t normally consult the Holy Spirit before committing themselves to something.
Cheers
MN
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Saint, I do not know. I admitted it was a strong intuition but not explicit that God killed them. The question is then, why does he not kill all who lie, kill and have ego? So I am not sure, but I have to admit, I am not averse to the thought that they died of natural causes, perhaps heart attacks. I would also suggest that Herod would have had the worms for a long time before death. So is it not possible that God used the deaths of these people to confirm spiritual truth, yet killing them only in the sense that he would kill us all as we are all dying some day. My point is only that it is not explicit, it may be implied, and even strongly implied, but Jesus statements are very explicit, and we cannot change them for and implicit one.
Homer, did you read my post? Because I have actually experienced herding animals in crowds, and it appears you have not. Are you denying this? Not one scripture says Jesus hit anyone with a whip, not one. And there is a strong suggestion studying John that he did not even threaten to do so. If gentleness is a fruit of the spirit, are you suggesting Jesus was not lead by the Spirit? Was Jesus trying to beat the men but just was not able to? Because if he had actually assaulted people he would have been arrested immediately not many days later. The Sadducees were in cahoots with the government if Jesus had committed a crime he would have been arrested immediately. Seems like the bible is much more on my side here Homer. And even if you interpretation is correct, which it most certainly is not, then it still does not prove that Jesus approves of killing people. You are looking for justification for your own preconceptions, just like you accuse the homosexuals of doing.
Most people will acknowledge that violence is an evil, even if a justifiable one. But what if idolatry would keep my family from being killed. The martyrs did not accept this as a necessary evil, that prevented a worse evil. You cannot love your enemy while killing him. You cannot return good for evil by sending them bombs. You cannot pray for those that abuse you while systematically starving them to death.
rev
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Saint,
You seem to think soldiers have no choice about whether they kill someone or not. I begin with the premise that everone has free will … do you disagree with that premise or do you think the soldiers’ choice was in some way removed?
When you make judgements about what is ‘defence’ and what is the ‘greater good’ and what is ’selfish’ and what is ‘not selfish’ I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing. My point is no matter how noble the objectives or ends, lethal violence even successful lethal violence is not a good way to achieve those ends.
When you make judgements about who are ’state actors’ and who is not, or who holds ‘moral or legal authority’ and who doesn’t, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing. What I am saying is that when any actor (State or otherwise) and when any authority (moral, immoral, legal or illegal) choses violence to acheive their ends, they create a monster that produces more violence.
What do you think Jesus meant when he said to one of his disciples those who live by the sword will die by the sword?
Homer,
Have you sought to understand what I was saying? Could I express myself more clearly for you another way?
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
My point is only that it is not explicit, it may be implied, and even strongly implied, but Jesus statements are very explicit, and we cannot change them for and implicit one.Rev, angels not to mention angels of the Lord/angels of the LORD do several things in Scripture, one of which is execute God’s judgment. Which would make Herod less likely to be carrying worms before he died. After all, Luke gives us a bit of a key at the beginning of Acts (Acts 1):
Is Jesus still doing and teaching? What is the Holy Spirit’s relationship to Jesus and the Father? I note that Peter in Acts 5 calls Him the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord.
I note too that one of the functions of angels in the Bible is to execute God’s judgment. So what was the angel of the Lord doing with Herod? Any relationship with angels or even the angel of the LORD mentioned in the OT? Reckon Herod had worms?
As for Jesus (Matthew 26):
Jesus could have called down an army of angels.
What for?
A harp party?
He didn’t need Peter’s protection or Peter’s intervention (prevention!) in order to do God’s will. If you want to extrapolate from that an enduring command never to use force then I think you are stretching it. After all, Jesus never commanded soldiers to leave the army even if he commanded sinners to stop sinning.
I personally cannot see that a Christian could be a total and utter pacifist. By your reasoning then, if a policeman - much less a Christian who was a policeman - had gotten a shot at Cho, they shold have not taken it, lest they possibly kill him. In the meantime Cho would have continued to wipe out even more innocent lives. In fact one would say, taking your stance to extremes, no Christian should be a soldier, policeman, security guard or part of any service that might require the use of reasonable - and at times lethal - force. I would say the world would be a worse place without those Christians.
I also dislike people equating “violence” - any old violence and always not defined - with the use of reasonable force where it is warranted and authorised. I am especially concerned that Nigel wants to tell us that a soldier in the ADF is somehow the same as a terrorist because they chose “violence”. For the record Nigel, an Australian soldier operates under rules of engagement which permit him/her to withdraw from a mission/not hit a target if there is any doubt that the target is not a military one and/or civilians are in danger. They are far stricter rules then even those of the U.S. They have exercised that choice plenty of times in Iraq, Timor, Afghanistan etc. And yes even U.S. soldiers exercise that choice under their own rules.
We of course know terrorists have no conscience and no authority and no concept of peace, love, or justice. In recent years, some have even been forced to carry out suicide bombings under threat of execution of their families.
No matter how noble your intentions Nigel, I really do find such comparisons between a professional soldier in a modern army and a terrorist particularly loathsome and dangerous. Not to say grossly insulting to the men and women who put their lives on the line in order to protect you and whom are sometimes called upon to do what you will not or cannot do.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Aplogies I should have edited the first part of that to remove the repetition.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Saint, you call the soldiers in your army professionals. What do the Muslims call the soldiers in their armies? Terrorists? No they call them martyrs and freedom fighters. They believe they are fighting for God. They believe their aims are more right than ours.
As to your other points, Jesus could have used violence, but didn’t. And then tells Peter not to as well.
Yes I go so far as to say that any profession that requires you to kill people would be wrong for a follower of Jesus to have, the early church did as well and you could not be a soldier and be baptised.
As to Cho, I believe the Jesus response would have been to stand in front of the bullets, and believe that God would give you a word that would either end the violence, or help those that were suffering.
Now I do understand your reasoning, but I think it is not only not what Jesus taught, but is also not as effective in the long run. When you respond to violence with violence you bring about a fight. And the moral decision of the aggressor becomes lost. If you refuse to resort to violence the attacker must face his moral decision to kill and destroy. By refusing to resort to violence you take away any justification they have, and make them face the fact that they are infact not being human, but walking in the demonic.
Now, if someone steals because they don’t want to work and covet others stuff, and another steals to support a drug habit that has them in bondage and slavery, and another steals to feed their hungry children, we may say there is different degrees of sin, but the fact is stealing is always wrong. How much more so it this true of violence. And the fact is that violence always begets more violence, maybe not right away, but the seeds of violence will always produce a crop, always everytime.
When we refuse to fight evil with evil, like Jesus explicitly told us to do, we sow the seeds of faith, and love. The Christians that were tortured and killed in the first three centuries never struck back, though they were more justified in doing so than any war the west has waged recently, and in peacefully standing against evil and oppression, they not only overcame the greatest empire in the world, but also went from 120 working class people in a bad neighborhood, to over two million people in 250 years. By following Jesus’ teachings, and his example the good news of the kingdom, as well as the peace that turns swords to plow shares comes to the fore.
Now less you find me a selfrighteous twit, I struggle with this desperately in my own life. I often want to throttle someone for the heinous act of driving too slowly in front of me. I see in Jesus the way, the truth and the life, and I am desperately trying to follow Him, not another way.
rev
April 24th, 2007 at 8:55 am
the rev wrote:
“As to Cho, I believe the Jesus response would have been to stand in front of the bullets, and believe that God would give you a word that would either end the violence, or help those that were suffering.”
This is where I depart from the pacifist view, descend from the clouds, and back into reality. Please, please, do not join the police force, especially in Brisbane. I beg you.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Saint, you said:
“Terrorists/solo shooters are not state actors, they do not hold any moral or legal authority, they do not operate under any constraints, they kill indiscriminately: civilians - men, women, children included (and that is why it is very dangerous to have the likes of Hezbollah or Hamas be given state authority) and their purpose is to instil terror to achieve some selfish end.”
Does that mean an organisation is not a terrorist organisation if it’s given state authority?
What about solo shooters who are under orders of an organisation like the CIA? (I’m no fan of conspiracy theories, but yes, I do think it happens)
What about commercial mercenaries brought in by a government?
April 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Emma - I find the fact that the ethical framework you choose shapes your view really interesting. One of my favourite subjects at uni was on theories of ethics, morality, justice etc, and it quickly became clear to me that all of us tend to operate within different frameworks at different times. It was this realisation that led me to calling myself “postmodern”, in the sense that I do think that there are different frameworks that we can apply to any situation/scenario, and they’ll lead to different outcomes/conclusions which we can then evaluate.
Saint - I wanted to add, that the idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter isn’t morally relativistic crap put out there by the media, but is a dilemma that actually exists in law. There is no definition of a terrorist - and interestingly, as far as I know (and admittedly I haven’t looked at it for a while), none of the so-called “Anti-Terrorism legislation” in Australia actually defines what a terrorist is (well, other than to say something like a person is a terrorist if the Attorney General says they are…and I’d hardly call that a definition!)
April 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Thank you bec, your words re: freedom fighter/terrorist were what I was trying to say, only clearer!
and yes I know what you mean re: ethics. the reason I was discussing it with my friend was actually because of the hoosexual question…I wanted o know in his opinion (as a theologian) whether we could take the OT and use it to define right and wrong. HIs answer was that I was talking about virtue ethics, and he explained to me the different framework. Years ago I wou;d have a lot of things in my “virtue ethics” basket if you like, for example, the right to life. But if I’m really honest with myself there are few things now that are in that “basket” - I do believe everyone has a right to live, but recently watched my friend’s elderly mother spend weeks of unedurable agony as she waited to die. She prayed everyday she might die…she wanted to be put out of that misery. after that I couldn’t honestly say I was anyi-euthanaisa anymore, for example.
However, justifying violence…I’d like to keep that in my virtue basket for as long as I can.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
^ Me too (re: keeping violence in the virtue basket). I think I’ve mentioned here before that my first trip to the Solomons really challenged me on that one, though…perhaps in part because violence and “payback” are parts of Melanesian culture (or at least many Melanesians would say they were), which can lead to cyclical violence. There might be a place for outside intervention, in the form of armed personnel, in such situations. Then again, the peacekeeping force that went to Bougainville was very small (compared to RAMSI) and unarmed. I really haven’t thought about it or studied it enough to have firm views - I was just struck by the fact that not a single person I spoke to in the Solomons resented RAMSI being there. They resented what they were DOING and HOW they were doing it, but they didn’t resent the presence of foreigners armed to the teeth!
April 24th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I have been reading the comments on this thread with interest. It would appear that much of the discussion here is transforming into a discussion of jurispudence. How can it not? Big questions re: injustice, justice, morality, ethics, philosophies, struggle, politics and power- and the adaption to reflect how individuals/ communities/ societies integrate & develop values both individual and collective is the stuff of legal theory.
One one main issue I struggle with is “who is telling the truth? Do I believe what the left is telling me or the right?”- I am very cynical of the mass media as I believe the west is very purposefully socially engineered on many issues by mass media. Propaganda has become personal. I also wonder who much the church should buy into it all; which is why I believe the church and state should be seperate. I believe christians should play an active role in politics and should not be without ‘voice’. However I believe the church should not be a political party- to be so leaves the church open to be compromised and manipulated for political ends or vis a versa.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
for t he church to be a political party it has to give up its voice of criticising from a non-partisan pov. Any actual political party has to compromise most of the time to win votes, form alliances etc. the church cannot be allowed to compromise its message in any way, in my opinion, and so does better as a political voice not aligned to a particluar party.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Which Muslims are you referring to? Muslim soldiers in armies of Islamic states? I’d say they think of themselves as soldiers with their own stated missions. (the Indonesian Army for example, has a strong focus on internal security) Or just your average self made terrorists like Hamas and al-Qaeda and Hezbollah and Sadr’s Mahdi army or the other two bit terrorists that come and go with depressing regularity, which these days are mostly but not exclusively Islamic.
And I think I pointed out in earlier comments about the difficulties when you have failed states like Somalia. Or why it is dangerous for those sorts of groups to gain political or state legitimacy, and the dangers of state sponsored terrorism (e.g. Iran/Syria supporting Hezbollah).
The state, civil, legal in fact all authorities are there to maintain a just and ordered society (a creational mandate I would suggest) and all authorities are ultimately answerable to God whether they recognise it or not. Not just any god, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Indeed not, because as Jesus said, how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way? I am not sure why you ignore Jesus’ own explanation.
Yes I go so far as to say that any profession that requires you to kill people would be wrong for a follower of Jesus to have, the early church did as well and you could not be a soldier and be baptised.
I shudder at the thought of armies and civil security forces operating without the tempering influence of Christians. But if that is your opinion, that is your opinion. To take it to its natural end then no Christian should be a politician, at least not in countries like ours where it is parliament that makes the decision to go to war or confer authority on others to use force, even lethal force. I personally wouldn’t be so black and white about it.
I would also add that history also teaches us something - and again I am happy for historians to correct me here. Most of the early Christians did not join the Roman army because of a number of reasons:
- killing on the battlefield
- torture in the law-courts (and yes torture was used in later ecclesiastical courts but that was MILD compared to the accepted norms of the day)
- officers passing death-sentences and common soldiers being required to undertake the executions
- unconditional military oath (Roman soldiers were branded)
- worship of the Emperor, participation in sacrifices, other idolatrous customs in which they were expected to participate (too many underestimate the persuasiveness of this factor as to why Christians did not join the army)
- state persecution against Christians which would break out at times in addition to the local skirmishes.
Nevertheless, I notice that there were always Christians in the Roman army and I suspect attitudes were tempered by the local context. The earliest church found to date recently excavated in Megiddo had an inscription in memory of a Roman soldier who was benefactor.
What I am saying here is that I am not sure that I am not sure that we are dealing with the same situation here as the earliest Christians. We in Australia aren’t even if others elsewhere perhaps are.
Well one hero, a 76 year old Holocaust survivor did just that, and allowed a few of his students to escape at the cost of his life. But it was only when Cho saw armed cops approaching that he chose to shoot himself.
I understand yours, but you think that people like Cho who was probably suffering some psychiatric/social disorder or ideologues like Bin Laden are capable of that sort of reasoning. Umm no, not everyone, not necessarily, not always. Sometimes God gives us over to our (evil) desires to bring down judgment on us. Scary thought hey.
So did God violate his own commandments when he sent the Israelites to war? Did he violate his own commandments when he asked for which Israelites would come forward to execute judgment on those of their kinsman who had worshipped the golden calf (I note it was the Levites). Note: I am not arguing for Holy War, but if you read say Deuteronomy carefully, you will note it was not just the Israelites that were given Canaan by God as a possession. Could it be that God is sovereign over all nations and that maybe He uses wars to execute His purposes be that judgement or salvation or usually both.
Indeed, and I never said that war is justified nor do I advocate Christians to respond to persecution with violence. But we are not talking just persecution of Christians here. (BTW even just war theory was never developed to justify war but to limit and contain it; I personally don’t subscribe to just war theory for various reasons including that it increasingly irrelevant in these days of terrorism and asymmetric warfare).
I don’t find you a selfrighteous twit Rev. I just don’t paint myself into the same corner. My own view is that I know the direction in which we are heading and I pray every day for wisdom to stay the course and overcome the obstacles on the way.
Oh and as to the question of what is terrorism asked by someone else above, I go back to the offensive comparison made in the original post that equates an ANZAC, terrorist and suicide bomber, or even the “violence” used by each as the same. If you can’t differentiate them, then I am afraid I don’t have the time or inclination to do that for you.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
not much to add after that from Saint
April 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Nice to see someone refer to the OT as if it is part of God’s Holy Word.
Cheers
MN
April 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Goodness, how some threads take off in a couple of days.
I’d like to throw in a belated reflection on post 16…. Saint, I sometimes get the feeling you respond differently to women than to men when they advance a viewpoint different to yours. Are you conscious of that?
I’m not having a go at you in saying that… consider it a kind-hearted invitation to reflect on whether any “buttons” get pushed for you and why that might be.
One of the (many!) things I love about Jesus was his particular sensitivity and kindness towards women and children… there’s so many lovely stories of Christ’s interactions with women in the gospels. I’d hope we could all be a little bit more like Him.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Saint, the old testament is to be understood through Jesus. Jesus flat out states that he brings us a new commandment. Jesus brings us a new covenant. Jesus contrasts the old with the new. The stories of genocide in the Old Testament are very disturbing to anyone who has a heart. But when it comes down to it, I cannot do other than what Jesus taught and did.
The other thing that no one seems to deal with is the fact that the disciples all died martyrs deaths as well, excepting John. Now, you will notice that they did not fight back, and they were not dying for our sins. The atonement arguement may work when discussing Jesus, though I don’t think it does then either, but it does not work for the apostles who we trusted to give us scripture. If they understood this to be Jesus’ command, then how can we stand against them?
rev
April 24th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Rev
“we may say there is different degrees of sin, but the fact is stealing is always wrong. How much more so it this true of violence”
i don’t think this is a good line of arguement .. one thing can be morally wrong in one extreme and morally right in another, it is a good thing to look after ones family but to do so at the expense of my neighbours family when my family is more than well off would be wrong… i think the same can be said for a violent act.
i also think there is a great difference between a soldier who swears to protect his country from its enemies and a person who’s sworn aim is to kill indescriminantly members of another religion/culture on the basis that they disagree with their way of life esp when they are not threatening him
Bec “Does that mean an organisation is not a terrorist organisation if it’s given state authority?” see above. although i am sure saint will have his say
Emma “my point is that depending on what ethical view we may have about violence, we will probably twist the truth to make it fit. ‘
my point as i have argued over many strings is that we should have a Christian view of ethics and morality which does encompass parts of virtue and consequentialist ethics but is totally opposed to postmodern or modernist views on ethics/morality
it is here where the rev and i are probably on the same page without him even knowing it,,, Christianity is a total worldview that subverts all other conceptions of morality/ethics and even reality. all other wordviews either go against the Christian worldview or borrow from the Christian worldview… Christianity borrows from no worldview
April 24th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I agree in some respects, but too often people say that a modernist view of things is a Christian one, and a post modern one isn’t. In my mind Jesus reflected a paradigm that fits neither view perfectly.
rev