Is it zeal or militancy? Which begs the question is one better than the other..?
Well, the scripture in mind as it is:
Proverbs 19:2
It is not good to have zeal without knowledge
nor to be hasty and miss the way!
From what I understand, militancy can be an aspect of zeal - although when militancy is confused to be the sole expression of true zeal...and I mean militancy in the sense of aggression toward anything disagreeing with oneself...then that can be problematic, IMHO, I've found myself having a lot of problems with that lately - as I do wonder if I'd be more so in the camp of a monastic/monk wanting to live a life of peace (like a Charles Xavier based on Martin Luther King/Fredrick Douglass)...or more so in the camp of someone who wants peace but is willing to be very aggressive about it/get it by any means necessary (like a Magneto/Malcolm X who at one point was willing to use violence to achieve things). Like soldiers and the Saints who were in that position - not wanting to use violence but being willing to do so if called to..and yet having regret on it.
Or if perhaps I'd want to be a militant pacifist -as others described King. Militancy was never something automatically divorced from the work done by Civil Rights leaders, as e
ven Dr.King was described as a Militant Pacifist by others in his day and was well respected by other militants.
For King, it was about discovering which has
more strength: fighting via violence self-defense or aggressive submission. And for anyone ever saying militant pacifists can never get anything accomplished, I simply say look at King..as he was willing to die for it to make a difference we live in today - and of course,
for white militants trying to harm his life and that of his family, he made it a point to have a weapon in his earlier life.( more at
Lesson 6 :: A Threat to Justice Anywhere: War" ( ).
Interestingly enough, both
King and Malcom X had convergence in many of their views of
militancy and peace/violence together - and IMHO,
St.Moses the Black would be a good example from the past to bring to mind when it comes to militancy being beneficial - as the man could be violent if he needed to be - and yet it was used to make others changed. Everytime I look at what is happening in the Gang culture and the music scene, it reminds me of how the only way to get rid of pimps is to transform them into priests - turning thugs into theologians and gangsters into god-fearers...and one of the reasons why doing Urban ministry has had been a blessing when remembering St. Moses the African/Black, a 4th-century Ethiopian
who went from being a thug and a gang leader to becoming a monk, a priest, and finally, a martyr. Even though Moses was committed to the monastic life, once when a band of robbers attacked the monastery, Moses fought them, overpowered them and dragged them to chapel where the other monks were in prayer. He told his brother monks that he did not think it Christian to hurt the robbers, but asked what they thought should do with them. The robbers repented, converted and joined the monastery....and if that's not a positive form of militancy in action - I don't know what is
.
But I digress.
With militancy, if it is called for and necessary to match the aggression done in the culture, it may be good - but it must be done with wisdom. A person planning a battle strategy to deal with their enemies is not the same kind of militant as one who throws bombs into their own camp because they want to "root out the spies" in it - and think they were successful in "protecting" their own because they may've killed some enemies even though they damaged others in the process. Friendly Fire is never good.
On the same token, even for others wishing to use militancy, it can be misapplied if simpler/more practical approaches have not been used - such as conversation/dialouge . or even choosing to change the conversation in the use of terms so that both sides can understand one another rather than getting lost in translation. And with the life of a believer, that seems to be the same dynamic. So often we treat all people in the culture as if we're in the Matrix Triology - where those who don't agree with us are deemed to be "plugged in"/potential "agents of the system" whom we're allowed to kill...even though we claim we want to save them. '
And often we fail to be aggressive in approach when it comes to forcefully letting others not dismiss what God's Word said - but doing so by being forceful in prayer/persistence. Other times, we're not aggressive in choosing to love and listen to others - and we wonder why others don't want to listen to us....for we think they don't want truth when the truth is they don't like to feel like they're being
talked to rather than
talked with...and there's no respect given before we ask others to respect what we have to offer - I Peter 3:15-17 on sharing the GOSPEL being a big deal.
And many times, we end up harming one another because our zeal for truth is so greath that we fail to see if we really have accuracy in approach. If I may say, as one of my brothers in Christ (a former "Watchdog" blogger ) said best on the matter in his thread entitled
The New Phariseeical Movement
There are many blogs, whose entire premise or existence is to police the doctrine of others. I am all for correct doctrine, and for the most part, I think I have a pretty good grasp on some points, but in other areas I am Semper Reformanda (or always reforming). I hold to a reformed and New Covenant (sort of) perspective and for the most part I think I am right; however, others do not and they, as I do, believe themselves to be correct. I think these things can be debated, but as I always say the end goal is edification. When it gets to the point where harsh words, strawman assumptions, and self-righteousness takes precedent of mutual edification, the line has officially been crossed and sin has begun to take root. The problem is that most cant recognize that this type of Doctrinal Witch Hunt is SIN.
