Over the years, Hank Hannegraft has become famous in the world of conservative Evangelical Christians as the "Bible Answer Man" on Christian radio stations. Some of his words serve as a very appropriate transition from last week's exploration of lying to this week's exploration of violence:
The use of violence in the Bible paints a varied and sometimes frightening picture. Cain killed Abel out of jealousy and was perpetually cast out. God commanded the Israelites to completely slaughter the people of Jericho (except for Rahab who'd lied to help them). David killed Goliath and is still celebrated for it 3,000 years later. Ecclesiastes says, "There is a time for war and a time for peace... a time to love and a time to hate... a time to kill and a time to die." The kingdoms of Israel and Judah are condemned by the prophets for the use of unjust violence and are also the victims of unjust violence at the hands of one imperial oppressor after another. Jesus says, "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies and pray for them" and "blessed are the peacemakers" but then he tells his disciples to buy swords but then he says "all who live by the sword will die by the sword." We also cannot forget that Jesus refused to resist his accusers and executioners, yet he also never criticizes soldiers for being soldiers. The apostles welcome Cornelius (a soldier) into the church, but we have no evidence that they thought he should quit being a soldier. Paul says, "As much as it depends on you live at peace with everyone." So what does the Bible say about the use of violence? That's a really hard question to answer because the Bible says a lot of different things about violence. That's why Christians have been disagreeing on this for centuries.
As I've mentioned before, Christian pacifists claim that although there is a great deal of violence in the Bible that when Jesus comes on the scene he commands his followers not to participate (or even resist) that violence. A Christian pacifist author named T.C. Moore says that instead of violence "the Christian response to the threats of enemies is increased trust in God. Prayer and righteousness seem to be the only ways to ensure the safety of God's people, not weapons of war."
John Calvin, the founder of the Reformed movement that eventually spawned the Presbyterians, had a different way of looking at this, however. Whether he is right or wrong I don't know, but I think it is interesting at least to know what he had to say about it. According to Darrell Cole, a professor at Drew University, and author of When God Says War is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight,
Another interesting perspective is that of Darrell Cole, whom I mentioned earlier. I have not read his book When God Says War is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight yet but I plan to. I have, however, read a lengthy article of his from the Catholic journal First Things that summarizes the thesis of his book. I am fond of quoting Jimmy Carter in saying that war is sometimes a necessary evil, yet we must always remember that although it is sometimes necessary it is always evil. Dr. Cole disagrees with that. Cole says (I'm paraphrasing here) that if war (or killing) is always evil and sinful then we should never under any circumstance do it or support it being done by others. As Paul says in Romans 3, we cannot do evil so that good may come of it and as both Paul and Peter say, "Do not return evil for evil." So what that means is that either killing/war is always evil so we can never support it or do it or that when it absolutely must be done it is no longer evil, but in that particular rare circumstance it is a good.
Let's think about it this way: Is it evil for a police officer to shoot and kill someone carrying out a horrendous crime, let's say a school shooting? Is it an evil for a soldier to kill a violent terrorist threatening innocent people? If killing is always evil then it is also evil (a sin) when police officers and soldiers have to do it. If that is the case then we are paying someone else to commit our sins/evil for us, which is not permissible for the Christian. We cannot actively support sin/evil. So we either need to withdraw our support from our local police force and the military or we need to recognize that sometimes (most of the time) killing is evil and sometimes (very rarely) it isn't. Dr. Cole says (citing the just-war philosophy going back through Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin) that in very specific circumstance when non-violent means will not bring about the desired good, that violence (as a last resort) then becomes not a necessary evil but a necessary good.
I don't know about you (and it may not be very Christian of me), but I think it is good when a school shooter gets shot rather than him firing off another round into a five-year-old girl. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to make that choice, but--news flash!--we don't live in a perfect world. In that instance the school shooter's violence is evil and the SWAT team's violence is good. Whether or not you agree with that may have to do with your Christian ideals or it may just have to do with whether or not your six-year-old son was next in line to be murdered when the SWAT team took out the murderer. Again, I don't know what the right answer is; I just know what I think about it, which is not an anomaly within Christian thought but is based upon giants of theology such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin as well as my realistic projections of what I'd do in such a situation.
I'll cut this post off here and publish the rest of it next week. Next week I'll get into the fact that although we may feel uneasy about "situational ethics" (something being good some of the time and bad some of the time) our lives are filled with situational ethics and Jesus and Paul actually practiced situational ethics at times. It was the Pharisees (with Jesus) and the Judaizers (with Paul) who were always opposed to situational ethics, not Jesus and Paul. Also, I promise that next week's post will actually mention Captain Phillips.
If you read my blog post last week you know that I agree with the "Bible Answer Man" on this subject. I understand that some Christians don't agree--to them all lies are wrong. I respect their opinion, but at the same time I hope that my fate is never in the hands of those Christians who would choose their own personal piety (never lying) over my life. The same is true when it comes to Christians who are pacifists. Good for them for having high ideals, but I hope that the safety of my family is never dependent upon them. If--God forbid--one of my family members was in imminent danger and someone had the opportunity to keep that from happening but chose not to intervene out of Christian conviction, I would have a very difficult time understanding how they could choose their own piety over a person in desperate need. Jesus was most certainly nonviolent, but he also had a lot of harsh words for religious people who place piety over people. Just as I refuse to say that lying is always wrong, I also refuse to say that violence is always wrong. You don't have to agree with me but since you're reading my blog I'll assume that you are interested in me making my case.Furthermore, while the Bible never condones lying qua lying (lying for the sake of lying), it does condone lying in order to preserve a higher moral imperative. For example, Rahab purposed to deceive (the lesser moral law) in order to preserve the lives of two Jewish spies (the higher moral law). Likewise, a Christian father today should not hesitate to lie in order to protect his wife and daughters from the imminent threat of rape or murder. Finally, there is a difference between lying and not telling the truth. This is not merely a matter of semantics; it is a matter of substance. By way of analogy, there is a difference between unjustified and justified homicide. Murder is unjustified homicide and is always wrong. Not every instance of killing a person, however, is murder. Capital punishment and self-defense occasion justified homicide. Similarly, in the case of a lie (Annanias and Sapphira, Acts 5) there is an unjustified discrepancy between what you believe and what you say, and so lying is always wrong. But not telling the truth in order to preserve a higher moral law (Rahab, Joshua 2) may well be the right thing to do and thus is not actually a lie.
The use of violence in the Bible paints a varied and sometimes frightening picture. Cain killed Abel out of jealousy and was perpetually cast out. God commanded the Israelites to completely slaughter the people of Jericho (except for Rahab who'd lied to help them). David killed Goliath and is still celebrated for it 3,000 years later. Ecclesiastes says, "There is a time for war and a time for peace... a time to love and a time to hate... a time to kill and a time to die." The kingdoms of Israel and Judah are condemned by the prophets for the use of unjust violence and are also the victims of unjust violence at the hands of one imperial oppressor after another. Jesus says, "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies and pray for them" and "blessed are the peacemakers" but then he tells his disciples to buy swords but then he says "all who live by the sword will die by the sword." We also cannot forget that Jesus refused to resist his accusers and executioners, yet he also never criticizes soldiers for being soldiers. The apostles welcome Cornelius (a soldier) into the church, but we have no evidence that they thought he should quit being a soldier. Paul says, "As much as it depends on you live at peace with everyone." So what does the Bible say about the use of violence? That's a really hard question to answer because the Bible says a lot of different things about violence. That's why Christians have been disagreeing on this for centuries.
As I've mentioned before, Christian pacifists claim that although there is a great deal of violence in the Bible that when Jesus comes on the scene he commands his followers not to participate (or even resist) that violence. A Christian pacifist author named T.C. Moore says that instead of violence "the Christian response to the threats of enemies is increased trust in God. Prayer and righteousness seem to be the only ways to ensure the safety of God's people, not weapons of war."
John Calvin, the founder of the Reformed movement that eventually spawned the Presbyterians, had a different way of looking at this, however. Whether he is right or wrong I don't know, but I think it is interesting at least to know what he had to say about it. According to Darrell Cole, a professor at Drew University, and author of When God Says War is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight,
So for Calvin, Jesus Christ had to be completely nonviolent because the role he came to play and what he came to accomplish required complete nonviolence. After all, if we believe traditional Christian teachings, then we believe that in a very real sense Christ came to die on the cross. Unlike your purpose and my purpose (to live to the glory of God), Jesus' purpose was to live a short life to the glory of God and then die on the cross. His purpose required nonviolence. According to Calvin, because--although we are his devoted followers--we do not have the same role and we cannot possibly accomplish what he did (nor do we need to since he has already done it) we are not held to the same standard of complete nonviolence. Instead we are held to the standard to live peaceful lives to the glory of God, only using violence in very rare circumstances when the good gained by that violence is worth more than the damage done. Again, I don't know if Calvin is right or wrong, but I do know that I agree with him."for Calvin, Christ's pacific nature carries little normative weight for Christians, for that pacific nature is located in Christ's priestly office of reconciliation and intercession-an office that Christians can in no way fulfill or reproduce. Christ's pacific nature-His willingness to suffer death at the hands of unjust authorities both Jewish and Roman-is inextricably tied to His role as Redeemer and is not meant to be a complete model for Christian behavior. No Christian can follow Christ as Redeemer, but all can follow Christ as One who obeys the commands of his Father."
Another interesting perspective is that of Darrell Cole, whom I mentioned earlier. I have not read his book When God Says War is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight yet but I plan to. I have, however, read a lengthy article of his from the Catholic journal First Things that summarizes the thesis of his book. I am fond of quoting Jimmy Carter in saying that war is sometimes a necessary evil, yet we must always remember that although it is sometimes necessary it is always evil. Dr. Cole disagrees with that. Cole says (I'm paraphrasing here) that if war (or killing) is always evil and sinful then we should never under any circumstance do it or support it being done by others. As Paul says in Romans 3, we cannot do evil so that good may come of it and as both Paul and Peter say, "Do not return evil for evil." So what that means is that either killing/war is always evil so we can never support it or do it or that when it absolutely must be done it is no longer evil, but in that particular rare circumstance it is a good.
Let's think about it this way: Is it evil for a police officer to shoot and kill someone carrying out a horrendous crime, let's say a school shooting? Is it an evil for a soldier to kill a violent terrorist threatening innocent people? If killing is always evil then it is also evil (a sin) when police officers and soldiers have to do it. If that is the case then we are paying someone else to commit our sins/evil for us, which is not permissible for the Christian. We cannot actively support sin/evil. So we either need to withdraw our support from our local police force and the military or we need to recognize that sometimes (most of the time) killing is evil and sometimes (very rarely) it isn't. Dr. Cole says (citing the just-war philosophy going back through Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin) that in very specific circumstance when non-violent means will not bring about the desired good, that violence (as a last resort) then becomes not a necessary evil but a necessary good.
I don't know about you (and it may not be very Christian of me), but I think it is good when a school shooter gets shot rather than him firing off another round into a five-year-old girl. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to make that choice, but--news flash!--we don't live in a perfect world. In that instance the school shooter's violence is evil and the SWAT team's violence is good. Whether or not you agree with that may have to do with your Christian ideals or it may just have to do with whether or not your six-year-old son was next in line to be murdered when the SWAT team took out the murderer. Again, I don't know what the right answer is; I just know what I think about it, which is not an anomaly within Christian thought but is based upon giants of theology such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin as well as my realistic projections of what I'd do in such a situation.
I'll cut this post off here and publish the rest of it next week. Next week I'll get into the fact that although we may feel uneasy about "situational ethics" (something being good some of the time and bad some of the time) our lives are filled with situational ethics and Jesus and Paul actually practiced situational ethics at times. It was the Pharisees (with Jesus) and the Judaizers (with Paul) who were always opposed to situational ethics, not Jesus and Paul. Also, I promise that next week's post will actually mention Captain Phillips.
