I posted a link the other day to an article by Greg Boyd discussing what he (a pacifist) would say to the president about Syria. He raised some interesting points. I’m not sure that I’m in full agreement, but they seemed worthy of discussion. Here are some of the main ideas:
The first thing I’ll say is that I don’t believe that being a kingdom pacifist (viz. on who swears off violence out of obedience to Jesus) means that one must embrace the conviction that governments are supposed to embrace pacifism.… I don’t believe Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on the need for disciples to adopt an enemy-loving, non-violent lifestyle was ever intended to serve as a mandate for how governments are supposed to respond to evil.
The important point for us to see is that Paul forbids disciples to ever engage in the very activity he says God uses governments to accomplish – namely, taking vengeance (ekdikēsis). We are to leave “all vengeance to God,” in other words, and one of the ways God takes “vengeance” is by using sword-wielding governments.
I believe this teaching implies that there are “sword-wielding” offices in government that disciples simply can’t hold. But I think it’s a complete misunderstanding to think that kingdom pacifism entails that disciples should try to get their government to adopt a pacifist position. This is treating the government as if it were the church!
Since our government has (almost) always been committed to the just-war principle that violence should be used only as a last resort, I’d first press him on the question of whether or not we are absolutely certain Assad is guilty of having engaged in the atrocity he is being accused of.
Moreover, I’d encourage Obama to seriously take a careful look at what the long-term fallout of a violent intervention will be. While violence always looks like a solution in the short run, it turns out to only lead to an escalation of violence in the long run.
Finally, if Obama solicited my advice, I’d inquire if all other avenues of resolving this crisis have really been exhausted. Have we exhausted all attempts to achieve a diplomatic solution with Assad? Have we exhausted all attempts to dialogue with him and/or with his allies?
And if Obama answered “yes” to all these questions, I’d ask him if he’d allow me to ask one further, slightly more personal, question: “Brother Obama, as a professing follower of Jesus, how do you reconcile your position as Commander in Chief with your allegiance to Christ?”
I want to explore that final quote a bit more, but first, I’d like to hear your reactions to Boyd’s ideas. Is he right in saying that God wants Christians to act one way and countries another? Is there a difference in what he expects of government leaders and what he expects of ordinary Christians?
In our modern worldview of autonomy and freedom and faith in the power to choose, we believe that government action is simply a function of the will of government leaders. I’m not convinced. There are so many more forces in play, and the philosophical rejection of the “supernatural” from the equation leads to a huge blind spot and a lot of chaos.
So, that being said, I think a better question is necessary: Does God *use* Christians in one way and governments in another way?
Does God carry out ekdikēsis?
If so, how?
Are kingdom people called to be set apart from violence and wrath to the point where we would be such ineffective tools for that mission that it stands to reason that God would look elsewhere — that he would redirect the nations towards one another in such ways?
Also — governments are expected to do justice, to use their strength on behalf of the weak. Sometimes that strength may need to be exercised to “the up the strong man” so that he may no longer prey upon others.
I hope that at least adds something to the covnersation :)
Well, I really doubt this guy shows respect for people he doesn’t agree with much less his enemy. If you can’t show respect for the man, at least show respect for the office he holds, and the people who put him there. If you can’t bring yourself to refer to the President of The United States as Mr. President,
President Obama, or at the least Mr. Obama. don’t tell me you respect your enemies. Any thing else he has to say does not interest me in the least.
If this had been President Bush (either one of them) we would have already been in another war. But it seems since we have a Democrat for President all the war mongering Republicans have become pacifist .
Nick Gill says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:50 am
“Is he right in saying that God wants Christians to act one way and countries another?”
Nick, if this is so, then it is clear God does not want Christians to be leaders of a country. I think we need to take another look at what Jesus thought about Christians in the military. and the one extra command he gave them.
Thanks Nick.
I still see God using the ungodly for punishing the nations of the world much more than the godly. Especially true in the New Testament. Why wasn’t the message of Revelation a message that Christians would one day put Rome in her place? When God punished nations in the Old Testament, he didn’t typically use his covenant people; why would that be different today?
As for vengeance, no, I don’t think that God intends to use Christians for that purpose. Again, I don’t see anything in the New Testament that points to that. Or am I missing something obvious?
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim,
All three questions basically wrestle with the same issue (with the exception of the Canaanite conquest, where explanation of the delay of the gift of Canaan to the covenant people is attributed to the need for the “sins of the Amorites” to reach fullness — in that episode, YHWH does seem to use the covenant people to exact his punishment).
Overall, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the covenant people were a distinct geopolitical entity, with their own government and territory. You don’t find Babylonian prophets of YHWH in the OT, while in the New Testament, Paul and Cornelius and many unnamed converts over the centuries are both citizens of Rome and the Kingdom of Jesus.
The tension come from the idea (of course, there are many who disagree with this interpretation) that kingdom people are specifically charged *not* to be SO set apart from the world. The grand reversal in covenant engagement with the world from attractional (as in, “Come to Palestine, see the glorious Temple-Nation, and be convinced that YHWH alone is God”) to missional (as in, “Get to know the glorious Temple-People among you and be convinced that Jesus is Lord”) seems to disallow such a high level of separateness.
After all, there are lots of other things that the covenant people didn’t do for the nations, that kingdom people participate in simply because of their vocations in the world.
Good question. There are several factors that make this question difficult. First, we certainly know that God uses governments to punish wrong doers and that is not predicated on whether the government serving as an agent of God’s wrath is just and righteous. The problem is that we see wrong committed by one source of power in order to prevent another source of power from doing wrong (and, as everyone of our mother’s taught us, two wrongs do not make right). So for instance, in WWII the Axis powers were clearly guilty of committing mass evils but the force that the Allied powers used to stop the Axis powers involved many evil atrocities as well (especially the dropping of the atomic bombs). Second, the postmodernist in most of us is suspicious about the claims of any governing agency claiming to act as a police force for the common good in this world. Are such powers not just acting for their own political interests? Such suspicion raises doubt as to how much the said actions of the governing agency claiming to act as a police for is acting as an agent of God and not the agent of satan.
I think it is ironic that the postmodernist in us, who is so enamored of the both/and concept, has such a hard time envisioning it in these instances.
Nick,
I’m not sure that I agree that God’s idea was to decrease the separateness of his people. Just as Israel was to be a light to the nations, we are called to be a witness to the nations. Yet we remain a holy people, set apart. We are strangers and aliens, seeking a fatherland (patris) that is not of this world. [Which is why my patriotism goes to my heavenly patris and not any earthly one]
We can’t serve two masters. We can only serve God’s Kingdom while living in the kingdoms of this world. We will seek the shalom of those countries, but we will neither give ourselves over to them nor give ourselves over to their aims.
There’s a reason why we’re told to leave vengeance to the Lord. Like all judgment, that belongs to him alone, for only he can judge the heart. We aren’t called to take part in God’s vengeance; we’re told to leave it to him.
Grace and peace,
Tim
All judgment does not belong to Him alone (John 7).
You didn’t address my evidence that, whether it was intended or not, by
— eliminating sovereign territory and government, by
— scattering the kingdom throughout the world, by
— calling citizens of other kingdoms to join His kingdom without first surrendering their other citizenships, by
— removing food restrictions that hindered table fellowship, by
— incarnating in human form,
the kingdom’s distance from the nations *was* decreased.
Pre-exilic Israel didn’t collect Babylon’s garbage, didn’t teach Babylon’s children, didn’t go look for research materials for Babylon (sorry, had to throw my own work in there!), etc.
Obviously, God calls us not to seek vengeance directly or on purpose.
But does He also require that we live such lives that He could not use us (as part of the larger community to which we belong) for His own purpose in that way? Babylon and Rome did not choose to be God’s instrument of wrath against Israel — but their people were able to be caught up in that activity because of their lives and work. Are Christians required to remove themselves from any walk of life that could be caught up in God’s punitive purposes?
“Are Christians required to remove themselves from any walk of life that could be caught up in God’s punitive purposes?”
I think this subject is way off base as far as God is concerned. With all the tools he has in his pack, why would he choose mortal man (in war) to punish other mortals. I think that is blaming God for what man does. I would be easier to convince that natural disasters were the punishment chosen by God. But I don’t believe that either. The whole subject is totally ridiculous . God don’t fight wars, if he did he wouldn’t loose.
Now Nick, you know and I know that’s a different kind of judgment. Jesus is asking the Jews to evaluate correctly; he was not asking them to pass judgment on him. Man can opine and even “pass judgment,” yet in the end, there is but one Lawgiver and judge.
Physical distance was decreased, but that did not eliminate the separation. Your point about garbage collection, library work, etc., is interesting (and not without validity). Yet there is a fundamental difference when it comes to military service and war. It’s the rare circumstance where a teacher is told to kill someone in service to the State. When is the garbage collector called on to destroy a building without knowing who or what is inside? Soldiers are asked to follow moral decisions made by others, to abide by decisions made by politicians and superior officers.
As for not getting caught up in God’s work of vengeance, it’s a bit like not being caught up in criminal activity. Something that I do could be used by someone for something illegal. It’s a very different thing to choose to contribute to that activity. Yes, I could manufacture the pencil that the engineer uses to invent the drone that kills innocents. But that’s not the same as deciding to use that drone to attack someone else. I could teach the child to read who later uses that skill to create a terrorist explosive device. It’s not the same as carrying out the bombing myself.
If I’m not carrying a gun, I’m not going to be called on to fire it.
But Tim, they were passing judgment on Jesus because he healed a man on the Sabbath, and Jesus didn’t say, “Stop passing judgment on me!” Of course there’s only one Lawgiver and Judge, but there’s also Matt 19:23-30 and Luke 22:24-30 to consider. I’m just not sold on the supposed difference between evaluation and passing judgment. But that’s a discussion for a different time.
I was very careful *not* to say that the separation had been eliminated — just lessened. And not only was physical distance decreased, but also behavioral distance. Activities that were once forbidden became acceptable. All that to wrestle with the question of “how does God use the covenant people?” and the related question of, “Since vengeance has been limited to God alone, how far from tools God uses to carry out vengeance must the covenant people distance themselves?”
Part of the reason that it is a very different thing is because the “something that I do” is perfectly acceptable, while the illegal activity is, well, illegal. Therein lies the difference — if God is doing it, it isn’t against God’s law.
Is it possible for a soldier or a police officer to serve without being driven by the vengeance motive? Must we buy into the caricature that all soldiers are bloodthirsty barbarians who thirst for the blood of their enemies to pay for whatever the enemy nation did to “deserve” revenge?
If it is possible for a soldier or police officer to do what they do for reasons other than vengeance, and if it is possible for a soldier or police officer to choose to refuse to obey orders they believe are wrong… I’m just not sure that we can assert with confidence that military service is forbidden because the one serving might get caught up in God’s activity and thus violate the command against seeking vengeance for themselves.
And if you don’t pick up your mat on the Sabbath, you won’t work on the Sabbath.
OK, I don’t think I read the context well enough in John. They were judging. I still say that’s different than what God does, which is why I quoted James about their only being one Lawgiver and Judge. In the same way, there’s only One who can truly bring people to justice.
I’m not buying into any caricatures. We were talking about “vengeance by the sword”, as described by Paul, and whether or not Christians could be part of that. Fact is, I doubt that many soldiers are motivated initially by vengeance.
I do understand that soldiers are capable of disobeying orders that they know are wrong. I’ve never been in the military, so I could easily have the wrong idea. My perception is that in the heat of battle, an officer might say, “Destroy that house,” and the soldiers wouldn’t take the time to ask who was in the house, why did it need to be destroyed, what proof of their guilt could be found, etc. They have to trust that someone else has done the due diligence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that they are at times in the position of being told to kill someone without knowing with great certainty who that person is or why they deserve to die.
This may not apply to you, but I find it ironic that people who don’t trust their lawmakers on subjects like health care and immigration have no problem with lawmakers deciding when and where our young people should take human lives. I’m not willing to say that military service is forbidden, but I haven’t seen yet a good argument for Christians being a part of it. And I see LOTS of reasons why it’s not a good idea.
If I don’t pick up Matt on the Sabbath, he’ll have to walk home.
When nations take on themselves the ‘duty’ of taking vengeance on other nations in the name of God, it is likely that they are deceiving themselves. At least when God spoke of Assyria as the rod in His hand to punish Israel (Isa 10), He went on to say that this was not at all what the Assyrians had in their hearts. Instead they looked at what they did to the Israelites as a means of elevating themselves and their gods. Because this was their intent, Yaweh also scheduled them for punishment, which came at the hands of Babylon not much more than a century later. Habakkuk also shows that God uses evil men to discipline others who are more righteous than those whom God uses to discipline / punish / call to repentance His people – in spite of what Laymond may say about what God does not do.
When men propose to put themselves into God’s place to exercise God’s vengeance on other nations, I repeat: it is likely that they are either deceiving themselves or attempting to deceive others by drawing a robe of righteousness around themselves to appear on a moral high ground.
Jerry said; “I repeat: it is likely that they are either deceiving themselves or attempting to deceive others by drawing a robe of righteousness around themselves to appear on a moral high ground.”
Jerry I believe that is exactly what happened in old testament writings also. Claiming justification through moral authority.
If God were punishing a whole country why would he not use floods, earthquakes, draughts , plagues, something people would know God was disappointed in their actions, Sodom, Gomorrah, Red sea type of stuff , at least turn a stick into a snake.
Nick, the postmodernist is not known for the a uniform logic. :-)
hey, Rex! Those are my toes too! LOL