This is the fifth post in a series of posts looking at the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referred to a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White which brings up these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)
The fourth dodge mentioned is the “The ‘inner attitudes’ dodge.” Apparently advocated by John Calvin [Edit, January 11: Westmoreland-White makes this assertion, but I’ve been unable to find any evidence of this], this expresses the idea that Jesus’ teachings are not about our external actions, but merely about our internal attitudes. (Strikingly similar to some ancient Greek heresies, if memory serves) Even if we must kill our enemies in wartime, we can continue loving them, even as we do so.
As I said, this smacks of the kind of dualism that was popular in the ancient Greek world. Jesus was a living example of the need to couple actions with attitudes, and his teachings spoke of the same. Westmoreland-White says, “He tells us that we love our enemies by praying for them, seeking to do them good, stopping our worship to make peace. We confront those who backhand us (an act of humiliation) by turning the other cheek, so that they are forced to acknowledge our human dignity; we confront those who who would sue us poor for the very coat on our backs by stripping naked in the court of (in)justice; we react to the occupation troops who force us to carry their packs one mile, by carrying them two miles.” These are not mere attitudes, but actions that reflect an attitude.
It’s possible that the confusion arises from some of the Bible’s teachings about the futility of external acts that aren’t accompanied by man’s heart. That is a popular theme in the Bible. Empty rituals are just that: empty. However, the idea that we can somehow love others without acting upon that love is very foreign to the Bible. John said it well:
“But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:17-18)
Do you see anything defensible about the “inner attitudes” point of view?
That sort of dualism makes no sense of why John the Baptist’s preaching-call to repentance came with the caveat of bringing fruit worthy of repentance (cf. Matt 3.8). Those who wish to participate in the mission of God in Christ are called not just to a new internal attitude but to a change of heart (repentance) that yields an actual change in living that follows Jesus into a new life that is born from cross and resurrection.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Cool. So outer conduct ≠ inner attitude? Well, in that case, can I go out and charitably rob some banks right now?
After that, I’ll head out to participate in some sober drunkenness and peaceful bar fights…
I have a real hard time thinking this was Calvin’s position, but I could be wrong. :) Tim, does he have a footnote/endnote to back up that claim?
I’m not sure the quote of 1 John 3:17-18 is helpful; unless he/you are speaking to the Christian community which is what John was referring to when writing about “brothers.” That term is not a general term in that text (nor is it general when Jesus expounds on it in Luke 10; which even if it was, doesn’t mean that’s what John meant).
I do see some credence to being able to kill somebody without hating them. In regards to self-defense for example, I don’t have to “hate” a robber or a mugger in my heart in order to pull a trigger as he enters my property or attacks a family member. I can, in all honesty, love somebody yet shoot them to defend others (which is what I would hope the situation would be). I think it would be tremendously UNloving to do otherwise.
I just think that it is possible to love in heart yet do something outwardly that normally wouldn’t be defined as “loving.” I hope I’m making sense. Westmoreland-White, as you have mentioned, has an ax to grind here, particularly when it comes to pacifism and that must be taken into account.
But overall, I don’t buy the inner/outer “dodge.”
Grace be with you –
Jr
Jr., must you kill a robber or rapist to prevent injustice from occurring?
I have many unanswered questions about Jesus’ teaching to love enemies in Matthew 5.44 even though I am now of the pacifist position, believing the just-war theory to be wrong. Strictly speaking, given the theo-political context of second-temple Judaism, I believe the enemies Jesus was referring to were more imperial/political rather than a single thug committing rape or robbery so while I believe it to be immoral/unethical for Christians to use violence against political/national enemies, I not convinced it would be immoral to use necessary force to thwart a rape or robbery. Nevertheless, making an ad-hominem argument by posing a quandary in which a rape or robbery is being committed does not help us answer the question of the ethic Jesus was teaching. As Keith Stanglin (theology Professor @ Harding University) rightly asserts, “it sidesteps the de facto question of truth” (Stanglin, “Whatever Happened to Christian Pacifism?,” The Bison 3, 2007.).
Grace and Peace,
Rex
I’m linking your ongoing Sermon on the Mount series to my blog today (preachersmith.com). Good stuff, brother! Keep wrestling with the text and causing us to do the same!
And though I’m late in saying it, from one Weird Al Yankovic fan to another, 1,000 bonus points to you for working Al in as an opener for this Sermon on the Mount series. ;-)
Jr,
To my thinking, the 1 John quote is helpful in understanding that inner attitudes must be expressed by outward actions. That’s as far as I meant to take it. As for applying it to our enemies, well, I’ll leave that to Paul in Romans 12. :-)
I think Romans 5:6-11 gives us a good idea of what loving enemies looks like.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: I appreciate the update on Calvin. It sounded a bit suspicious to me which is why I wondered if he cited anything. And this is off topic, but how do authors get away with doing that? If I ever made an assertion like that on a term paper and did not cite it I would be marked; yet I see this more and more in books. NT Wright does it in his books with his assertions about the reformers and then others take these assertions as facts when if one actually looked at the writings of those for whom the assertions are made you would find just the opposite, or at least a clearer picture.
Anyway, just a peeve of mine. Not just in theology, but in all kinds of topics this is an issue. Blanket assertions and statements made where unknowing readers then fall on the sword of the fallacy of appealing to authority when defending the same claims. It’s not good for anyone.
OK I’m done.
Im not sure that turning the other cheek forces anyone to do anything. It certainly doesn’t force someone with no appreciation for human dignity to suddenly regard it. There is something to be said about the targets of the three most successful non-violent political movements (The Jesus Way, Gandhian nonviolence, and the American Civil Rights Movement). Rome, Britain, and the United States were all societies noted for regard for human dignity. If Germany defeats the Allies in WWII, and Gandhi meets the Waffen SS instead of British colonial authorities… I think Gandhi would be a mere footnote in history.
Nick,
The Jesus Way was “successful” after several centuries. I’ve yet to see any who advocate the “effectiveness” of violence that were willing to wait that long. And I’d choose the success of those who overcame Rome by martyrdom over what was accomplished otherwise.
God’s methods rarely seem effective in the short run. And by human standards, they are often deemed a failure.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer