After a stimulating conversation with some of my good friends over lunch the other day I had some thought that I would like to share about war and violence.
For most of us we are all for love peace, and living in shalom, and are willing to actively search for way of implementing these, especially the overcoming power of love.
But here is the issue: When we come up to a situation where we cannot conceive of how love can overcome, then we give up on it and assume that it cannot, and instead opt to implement the very tools which are inherently antithetical to love, the very things which destroy life(which love is all about)
Why do we so readily give up on love when it comes to facing grave evil and opt for the simpler option of war and violence? How did Jesus overcome the greatest evil of the world?
What ever happened to our imagination????????????
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 comments:
I think even more than using our imagination in that situation, how about we trust in that God's imagination is infinitely greater and that even when our finite imaginations fail his will find a way to redeem the situation even if we never see how it has been redeemed.
Gustav Aulen wrote, "Wrath is love's opposition to evil." He was speaking of God's wrath, but I think it is clear from scripture that God does use nations and kingdoms to excercise His wrath in opposition to evil forces.
I agree that as followers of Christ, we are called to be peacemakers, (so read this next thought with that in mind.) But the avoidance of conflict and submission to evil should be the choice of an individual, not a government. Love can at times require the use of force, even deadly force. But the use of force should always be the exception, never the first response.
The real difficulty in life is deciding when the use of force is appropriate and when it is contrary to the law of love.
Heath:
Thank you for your comment!!
I would contend that God no longer employs the nations to to exercise His wrath, nor individuals. So yes He did. But no longer. Also I never intend to suggest that anyone ever submit to evil, but rather struggle against it to the bitter end. Overcoming with love and sacrifice, without using the very tools which we would be fighting against. And finally this idea of distinction between the indivudual and the government smells a lot to me like the individualizm of our culture, and I personally see no such distinction in the scriptures.
But those are just my thoughts on the suject friend :)
Good thoughts, steb.
A governments responsibility to its citizens is much like (though I hate to use this analogy) a parent's responsibility to their children of a spouse's responsibility to their partner.
Let me set up a hypothetical situation, one that I will probably never face, but just the same, one that illustrates my point. If someone were to break into my house with the intent to hurt or even kill me, as a man I can choose to submit to the evil person out of love. But as a husband, I have a responsibility to my wife that outweighs, in my opinion, my responsibility to one who intends to do evil to her. So if there is no other option available to me, I believe it to be the loving thing to do to introduce that person personally to God (if need be). I believe to abdicate the use of force in this instance would be a violation of my promise of love to my wife.
So when it comes to a government's responsibility, it's use of force should be measured in much the same way. I am not suggesting that our government is or isn't correct in how it is currently using force. That is a diffrent discussion all together. I am only making the case that there are circumstances where the use of military force by a nation is not only justifiable, but also a loving response.
My wife would have to understand before we were even married that my love goes first to God and if my love for her and my love for God came to an impasse than my love for him would have to win out. She would hae to understand that if a situation like you have talked about occurred I would have to put my trust in God for the safety of us both.
Daniel,
I understand the sentiment, believe me I do. However, I do not think it is a fair supposition to say that to act with force is somehow demonstrating a lack of trust in God. From the standpoint of the responsibility of righteousness that is entrusted to us by God through freedom of choice, we might ask if we are even entitled to stand by and allow an intruder, or worse yet a child molester, free reign in our home. These are extreme examples, I know, but only because I do believe that there is a time when inaction is a demonstration of cheap grace and "taking up a whip" to fulfill our responsibility is within the bounds of agape love.
And if we were to extend submission to evil to its reasonable end, a Christian is ultimately not entitled to call the police if someone is threatening force, because to do so only passes the burden to another.
Also, a related thought, I do not think love can be compartmentalized. My love for my wife is an extention of, as well as a manifestation of, my love for God. Each of us is ultimately free to choose how we will respond in that situation. I just don't think it is fair to suggest that someone who would act to protect a life is choosing to love God less. Perhaps that was not your intent, but it is how the comment came across to me.
But in the end, let us pray that we never be faced with such a choice!
Heath,
I appreciate your comments and I do think there is a certain "ordering" to our love commitments, however, I think you are seeing pacifism as being "passive" which is a mistake. In your hypothetical it seems like the only alternatives are to either passively stand aside and let the other hurt your wife or to do violence to the other. It seems like there may be more alternatives that you are not considering and that this is the problem with our imaginations...we can conceptualize these situations in only either/or frameworks. John Howard Yoder wrote a book "What would you do?" specifically addressing your hypothetical situation where he displays that there are many more alternatives and that the violent alternative may, in fact, result in more harm all of the way around.
I'm enjoying the discussion here!
What would you do? is one of the books I've already added to my list of books I want to read. Its now moved up a few spots as I now have to professors that have recommended it.
Steb you make me so happy...
love ya man!
I found out during break that The Church of the Nazarene has a roll of consceintious(I think I spelled that wrong)objectors. I'm going to find out what you have to do to get your name on it.
Post a Comment