It's interesting to me that in the book of Acts, when Paul was being threatened by Jewish assassins, the church didn't send out armed guards to protect him. They instead appealed to the Roman government for protection.
In fact, we never see the church making use of weapons in Acts or any discussion of such in the epistles, despite Jesus' teaching in Luke 22:36.
While I don't think I land fully at your position, I think these posts are an incredibly important conversation as the church has in recent years taken these queations for granted. We jump to the conclusion without wrestling with the scripture.
You pull parts of your argument in previous posts from the Sermon on the Mount, and I wonder if we can treat this similarly to some of the other topics in there, particularly divorce. The Jews had taken God's tolerance of divorce as a license to divorce, and Christ clarifies that there is an extremely narrow definition of what justifies divorce. Divorce should never be taken lightly, it is not how we resolve marital disputes, and it is never good. It is only justifiable when the covenant has been broken with adultery, and it is still not a good thing. Divorce would also not be obligated.
Perhaps we should think about self-defense in the same manner. While God tolerates it, it is not something that can be taken lightly, and we do not have a broad license to commit violence against every threat. Violence is not how we resolve conflict, and it is never good. It would only be justifiable, I believe, when innocent life is under imminent threat, and nonviolent resolution is impossible, and even then to take another life is not a good thing. And as you pointed out, it would not be obligated.
Still something I'm pondering, I'm sure my thoughts will continue to evolve.
Too much of institutional 'Christianity' — i.e., that most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, genuine compassion, love and non-wealth — really seems to create their Creator’s nature in their own fallible and often angry, vengeful image. Notably, they'll proclaim at publicized protests that ‘God hates’ such-and-such group of people. Such ‘Christianity’ damages, and sometimes even ruins, the beautiful message Jesus expounded!
Disturbingly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional ‘Christians’. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.
The teachings and practices of Jesus (a.k.a. God incarnate) epitomize so much of the primary component of socialism — do not hoard gratuitous wealth in the midst of great poverty. Yet, they are not practiced by a significant number of ‘Christians’, likely including many who support callous politicians standing for very little or nothing Jesus taught and represents.
They should consider that the Biblical Jesus would not have rolled his eyes and sighed: ‘Oh, well. I’m against what the politician stands for, but what can you do when you dislike even more what his political competition stands for?’
In large part, Christ was viciously killed because he did not in the least behave in accordance with corrupted human conduct and expectation — and in particular because he was nowhere near being the angry and sometimes even bloodthirsty behemoth so many theists seemingly wanted or needed their Creator and savior to be and therefore believed he’d have to be.
Followers of Islam and Judaism generally believe that Jesus did exist but was not divine [albeit Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet]. After all, how could or why would the Divine lower himself down to the level of humans (and even lower, by some other standards)? How could the Divine via Jesus not be a physical conqueror — far less allow himself to be publicly stripped, severely beaten and murdered in such a belittling manner?!
Christ’s nature and teachings even left John the Baptist, who believed in him as the savior, bewildered by his apparently contradictory version of the Hebraic messiah, with which John had been raised. Perhaps most perplexing was the Biblical Jesus’ revolutionary teaching of non-violently offering the other cheek as the proper response to being physically assaulted by one’s enemy. The Biblical Jesus also most profoundly washed his disciples’ feet, the act clearly revealing that he took corporeal form to serve.
Yet, for many of us, all of that makes Jesus (ergo the Divine) even greater, not less so. Godly greatness need not be defined as the ability to destroy and harshly punish, as opposed to the willingness and compacity for compassionate forgiveness, non-violence and humility.
I appreciate your concern and love your conviction to you understanding about Christians using force. I can agree with you on much of your argument, but am a little concerned that you are taking scripture a little out of context as well to support your beliefs. Scripture shows that loving our enemies and living peaceably (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:18) does not mean allowing evil to prevail or refusing to protect innocent life.
Jesus and John the Baptist did not resist arrest because their deaths were unique fulfillments of prophecy (Matthew 26:53–54), not a universal command to never defend oneself or others.
John the Baptist told soldiers to act justly, not quit their jobs (Luke 3:14). Roman centurions were praised for their faith (Matthew 8:5–13; Acts 10), and Paul says rulers do not ‘bear the sword in vain’ but are God’s servants to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13:4).
Protecting your family or serving in law enforcement with justice and love is not hatred — it can be an act of neighborly love (Proverbs 24:11–12). As Christians, we must never act in vengeance but should do what is right, stand for justice, and trust God above all.
“I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for Liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow Creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us."
- Cofounder, Abigail Adams.
Letter on 31 March 1776, to John Adams. Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, December 1761 – May 1776, ed. Lyman H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 369–371.]
Still not on board with your position but I’m open and thoroughly enjoying this series. Keep it up, brother.
I thoroughly agree!
It's interesting to me that in the book of Acts, when Paul was being threatened by Jewish assassins, the church didn't send out armed guards to protect him. They instead appealed to the Roman government for protection.
In fact, we never see the church making use of weapons in Acts or any discussion of such in the epistles, despite Jesus' teaching in Luke 22:36.
Yes! Great point, Tim!
While I don't think I land fully at your position, I think these posts are an incredibly important conversation as the church has in recent years taken these queations for granted. We jump to the conclusion without wrestling with the scripture.
You pull parts of your argument in previous posts from the Sermon on the Mount, and I wonder if we can treat this similarly to some of the other topics in there, particularly divorce. The Jews had taken God's tolerance of divorce as a license to divorce, and Christ clarifies that there is an extremely narrow definition of what justifies divorce. Divorce should never be taken lightly, it is not how we resolve marital disputes, and it is never good. It is only justifiable when the covenant has been broken with adultery, and it is still not a good thing. Divorce would also not be obligated.
Perhaps we should think about self-defense in the same manner. While God tolerates it, it is not something that can be taken lightly, and we do not have a broad license to commit violence against every threat. Violence is not how we resolve conflict, and it is never good. It would only be justifiable, I believe, when innocent life is under imminent threat, and nonviolent resolution is impossible, and even then to take another life is not a good thing. And as you pointed out, it would not be obligated.
Still something I'm pondering, I'm sure my thoughts will continue to evolve.
Rick Atchley gave a series of sermons on Marriage and Divorce:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8pvs-VWd0T4hQyEdKqfWutIIhMq7vF8v&si=tvpkRYYU4z-GnY7F
His summary was, in short, “God loves marriage and hates divorce”. This bypasses absolutes and debates of “sin” by focusing on the core principle.
Likewise, we might possibly say “God loves peace, and hates violence.”
Too much of institutional 'Christianity' — i.e., that most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, genuine compassion, love and non-wealth — really seems to create their Creator’s nature in their own fallible and often angry, vengeful image. Notably, they'll proclaim at publicized protests that ‘God hates’ such-and-such group of people. Such ‘Christianity’ damages, and sometimes even ruins, the beautiful message Jesus expounded!
Disturbingly, some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who, quite ironically, make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many institutional ‘Christians’. Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.
The teachings and practices of Jesus (a.k.a. God incarnate) epitomize so much of the primary component of socialism — do not hoard gratuitous wealth in the midst of great poverty. Yet, they are not practiced by a significant number of ‘Christians’, likely including many who support callous politicians standing for very little or nothing Jesus taught and represents.
They should consider that the Biblical Jesus would not have rolled his eyes and sighed: ‘Oh, well. I’m against what the politician stands for, but what can you do when you dislike even more what his political competition stands for?’
In large part, Christ was viciously killed because he did not in the least behave in accordance with corrupted human conduct and expectation — and in particular because he was nowhere near being the angry and sometimes even bloodthirsty behemoth so many theists seemingly wanted or needed their Creator and savior to be and therefore believed he’d have to be.
Followers of Islam and Judaism generally believe that Jesus did exist but was not divine [albeit Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet]. After all, how could or why would the Divine lower himself down to the level of humans (and even lower, by some other standards)? How could the Divine via Jesus not be a physical conqueror — far less allow himself to be publicly stripped, severely beaten and murdered in such a belittling manner?!
Christ’s nature and teachings even left John the Baptist, who believed in him as the savior, bewildered by his apparently contradictory version of the Hebraic messiah, with which John had been raised. Perhaps most perplexing was the Biblical Jesus’ revolutionary teaching of non-violently offering the other cheek as the proper response to being physically assaulted by one’s enemy. The Biblical Jesus also most profoundly washed his disciples’ feet, the act clearly revealing that he took corporeal form to serve.
Yet, for many of us, all of that makes Jesus (ergo the Divine) even greater, not less so. Godly greatness need not be defined as the ability to destroy and harshly punish, as opposed to the willingness and compacity for compassionate forgiveness, non-violence and humility.
I appreciate your concern and love your conviction to you understanding about Christians using force. I can agree with you on much of your argument, but am a little concerned that you are taking scripture a little out of context as well to support your beliefs. Scripture shows that loving our enemies and living peaceably (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:18) does not mean allowing evil to prevail or refusing to protect innocent life.
Jesus and John the Baptist did not resist arrest because their deaths were unique fulfillments of prophecy (Matthew 26:53–54), not a universal command to never defend oneself or others.
John the Baptist told soldiers to act justly, not quit their jobs (Luke 3:14). Roman centurions were praised for their faith (Matthew 8:5–13; Acts 10), and Paul says rulers do not ‘bear the sword in vain’ but are God’s servants to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13:4).
Protecting your family or serving in law enforcement with justice and love is not hatred — it can be an act of neighborly love (Proverbs 24:11–12). As Christians, we must never act in vengeance but should do what is right, stand for justice, and trust God above all.
“I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for Liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow Creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us."
- Cofounder, Abigail Adams.
Letter on 31 March 1776, to John Adams. Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, December 1761 – May 1776, ed. Lyman H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 369–371.]