Christ and Nonviolent Resistance.

[gluadys]

There is an essay that floats about the internet -

rather than copy it here, I'll post a link.
http://www.pgpft.com/On_Sheep_Wolves_and_Sheepdogs-Grossman.htm

I believe there has to be room in heaven for Sheepdogs. Some people are called to serve in capacities of violence. Violence need not be evil nor do only evil men do violence.

Will I die by the sword? I hope not, but Jesus said it is likely. I will live and die by my bullets and blades and pray the Lord greet me, "well done my good and faithful sheepdog".

Yes, this is the kind of thinking that eventually led to just war theory and permission to Christians to participate in war. But I have to go along with non-violent resisters here and say it owes more to a failure of human creativity than to obeying Jesus.

If we truly cannot see a way to avoid violence, it would be better to use violence and ask forgiveness for our sin than to try and justify the violence as right.

 

[gluadys]

Then too, there is the question -

Do you believe that God is the same as He was, is and ever more shall be?

If yes, than the God we speak of has at times ordered His people to war, sometimes genocide . . . and even fought along side his people in some wars. Check out what happened to the walls of Jericho for example. And then there is my favorite Bible chapter, written by "the man after God's own heart" - Psalm 144 starts:



Edited to add: I just don't believe that God changes His mind or the folks that say "well that is in the Old Testament, so it doesn't count". The God to whom I kneel is changless and timeless.

Yes, God is the same, but we are not. I truly believe that we progress in our understanding of God and so we should not assume that some things the OT people thought was right is right.

It is not that God has changed, but that with experience, --and especially in the light of Christ-- we change to know God better than our far-distant ancestors did.

I do not believe God ever ordered genocide, but I do believe the ancient Israelites thought he did. So that is the way they told their stories.

 

[gluadys]

Isn't there something in Proverbs that goes "there is a time for peace, and a time for war" ? I remember reading it somewhere....can't remember though. That verse does stick out in my mind, however...I'm sure I could find it again if I tried long enough.

It is Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.

I think that war itself is sometimes necessary to preserve the lives of innocents. But I don't think God condemns war entirely....Jesus himself will come back to destroy Antichrist's army, after all. The final battle, hehe.

You shouldn't fight a war for the wrong reasons, though.

I don't know if war is ever necessary, but even if it is, I think we are always too quick to resort to war before really trying other options.

And I think the battle between Jesus and the Antichrist will be spiritual.

 

[Macx]

That is an angle I have never heard. Very creative (not being sarcastic btw).

So, the whole deal with dead egyptians floating in a recently parted Red Sea?

Judgement? Don't some suffer the consequences of sin in this life & if in defense of the poor, the weak, and the downtrodden I become an instrument of that judgement . . . how is it wrong?

It seems like your (Gluadys) line of logic leads to a Christian Mameluke . .. Where in Moslem culture a Moslem could not wage war against another Moslem . . . they could have slaves (Mamelukes) which were trained to fight and used against other Moslems. If Christians can't defend themselves . .. do they then hire mercenaries or slaves or wage slaves to do our fighting and defending for us?

 

[gluadys]

It seems like your (Gluadys) line of logic leads to a Christian Mameluke . .. Where in Moslem culture a Moslem could not wage war against another Moslem . . . they could have slaves (Mamelukes) which were trained to fight and used against other Moslems. If Christians can't defend themselves . .. do they then hire mercenaries or slaves or wage slaves to do our fighting and defending for us?

I wouldn't defend that line of thinking myself. But it is interesting that historically some communities of peace churches (Mennonites) have hired mercenary defensive forces for protection. And agonized over that decision. It is clearly not an ideal expression of pacifism.

OTOH, I have never been able to decide if I can support full pacifism myself either. So I would say that if one is in a position where one feels one must fight it is more honest to fight oneself. It is no salve to the conscience to hire others to do it for you.

I strongly resist, however, any suggestion that Christians are commanded to fight. Even in self-defence. We are commanded to be peacemakers. We are commanded not to resist with violence.

We need to recognize any resort to violence, even one deemed pragmatically necessary, as failure and ask forgiveness for our weakness.

 

[PostTribber]

True, that is what you said. But you used a very old form of English which is not understood by the masses. As far as I know Shakespearean English is only used on the stage and in private readings at least that is way I have been brought up. The Shakespearean form of English as practiced by some of the churches has been a major turn off for me and perhaps to others. I was brought up in a church that was very much in to that form of English. Being dyslexic (not stupid) I have learned to speak and write plainly and understandable to all.

...I'm just glad I don't need to know greek. KJV was the version I learned the bible, so naturally it's the best (for me). I use an NASB when I get into 'difficulty'. the NIV I find repulsive by comparison, not very inspiring, and try's to be more than it was 'originally' intended. I'm not a KJV Only advocate, I just like the way the old language accords Jesus the 'reverance' in a way in which we are 'inadequate' to do so today, much the same way as what we call 'worship' is more of the 'world' than it is 'in Spirit & in Truth'.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Quote:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.’
Unless your talking about dropping napalm on your father and mother, using the verse in question as the support of war doesn't work too well now does it?

You mean such as the "civil war"? Because, that's exactly what happened. Often times with "christianity" being at least a cover for the motive. Or any of the other military struggles that christianity had a part in? No, I'm pretty sure he meant war, as in "war" war.

There is a reason he said 2 was enough. 2 swords to defend 12 disciples ensured they would not take the initiative militarily, but rather use it for defense.

Because some christians died as martyrs during the persecution just means that they took the high road. Not that death was the alternative that was mandated by Christ.

 

[gluadys]

There is a reason he said 2 was enough. 2 swords to defend 12 disciples ensured they would not take the initiative militarily, but rather use it for defense.

Because some christians died as martyrs during the persecution just means that they took the high road. Not that death was the alternative that was mandated by Christ.

Even that was not used as a justification until the Constantinian age, after the persecutions were over.

Martyrdom occurred during the ages of persecution, not only because Christians did not take the initiative against their persecutors, but also because the universal teaching of the Church at the time was not to resist with violence.

No, Christ did not mandate seeking death, but submitting to death, as a witness (which is what "martyr" means) was considered preferable to violent self-defence.

 

[Healed_IHS]

That's only self defense though (which I still hold my view on). Yet, defense on behalf of others I believe violence is ok for. As it was stated earlier in this thread, look at the nazi's. Sure- Non violence would have ended nazism (possibly), but after how many decades?

To every season...

 

[gluadys]

That's only self defense though (which I still hold my view on). Yet, defense on behalf of others I believe violence is ok for. As it was stated earlier in this thread, look at the nazi's. Sure- Non violence would have ended nazism (possibly), but after how many decades?

To every season...

Possibly faster and with less loss of life than six years of war. Have you ever studied the non-violent resistance to the Nazis? There are many examples and they were surprisingly effective.

But they were all pretty much localized and individual. The only national ones I know of are the Danish resistance to the deportation of Jews and the Norwegian resistance to introducing a Nazi curriculum in the schools. I think one of the eastern countries too (Bulgaria? not sure which) also successfully resisted the deportation of Jews.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened with widespread, co-ordinated non-violent resistance.

I think the problem most people have with non-violent resistance is that they want it to be like North American peaceful demonstrations, all nicely organized with no casualties. Everybody has a nice time waving banners and goes out for a beer aferward.

But people do get killed when offering non-violent resistance, just as when they resist violently. Why are we so blase about "collateral damage" during violent conflict, yet so horrified by casualties when non-violence is the chosen method?

We should be horrified in both cases. Horrified enough to stop the killing. That, in fact, is the power of non-violent resistance--that the horror of innocent death extends to the perpetrators of death themselves. They, too, are only human and can only take so much blood before they cry "Enough!"

The early Christians understood that. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

 

[theIdi0t]

Possibly faster and with less loss of life than six years of war. Have you ever studied the non-violent resistance to the Nazis? There are many examples and they were surprisingly effective.

Would you happen to have any suggestions to where a person could begin to read about these examples?

 

[gluadys]

Wikipedia discusses the Danish resistance here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance

 

[wildthing]

Wikipedia discusses the Danish resistance here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance

I would hardly call that little article worth anything. What was the sources that the authors used. Who wrote and what is his background. It needs to have footnotes and should at least have bibliography.

 

[Macx]

So, if I am reading my history right . . . The Dannish govt. which had little choice but to capitulate, didn't AID their occupiers & made it possible for armed citizens to snipe, assasinate bomb, and demoralize Nazi military elements.

I'd maintain that where ever this non-violent approach has worked out in modern history, it has done so because somewhere in the background there were armed, rough men, willing to do violence to protect the weak.

Must these armed rough men always be "non-believers"? Is it possible, however distasteful that as I have put it (in a few contexts and times):

I am not called to be like Christ, I am called to serve Christ.

That there is a place for the warrior servant, like David the man after God's own heart . . . not a messiah as there can be only one . . . not a sheep or sheeple . .. not perfect, but redeemed . . . a man flawed in fact and faithful at heart, on whom each sin weighs - but weighs less than the measure of grace? I was reading a passage in my copy of the Hagakure, about compassion. How is it that I can strive to have so much in common with David & in fact have so much more in common with his mighty man Uriah . . . and be opposed to the will of God?

 

[gluadys]

I would hardly call that little article worth anything. What was the sources that the authors used. Who wrote and what is his background. It needs to have footnotes and should at least have bibliography.

I was just doing a quick google to see what was on line. I expect you can find more extensive and academic research in university libraries.

There is also quite a bit on non-violent resistance on-line, but not a lot on WWII.

 

[gluadys]

So, if I am reading my history right . . . The Dannish govt. which had little choice but to capitulate, didn't AID their occupiers & made it possible for armed citizens to snipe, assasinate bomb, and demoralize Nazi military elements.

I'd maintain that where ever this non-violent approach has worked out in modern history, it has done so because somewhere in the background there were armed, rough men, willing to do violence to protect the weak.

The Danish example is not "perfect" but then few examples are. If you look into other examples of non-violent resistance, you will find those in which there is not reliance on a backup by those willing to do violence.

Note, however, that even in the Danish example, the violence was not directed against people, but took mostly the form of non-compliance and sabotage of materials and systems. Some consider this within the sphere of non-violent resistance. Some don't. It is a point of controversy.

Must these armed rough men always be "non-believers"? Is it possible, however distasteful that as I have put it (in a few contexts and times):

There is no indication that all Danes who engaged in sabotage were unbelievers or needed to be.

I am not called to be like Christ, I am called to serve Christ.

I disagree. As a Christian I am called to serve Christ by being like Christ.

That there is a place for the warrior servant,

Whether there is or not, I truly do not know. What I do know is that we do not strive anywhere near strenuously enough to make the warrior role unnecessary.

If there is a place for the warrior servant, it should be when all attempts at peaceful resolution have failed---a last resort. But we have made it a first resort, never seriously attempting non-violence.

Perhaps we need enough faith to stop relying on the warrior, even as a last resort, to drive us to using the ways of peace first, last and always.

 

[wildthing]

I was just doing a quick google to see what was on line. I expect you can find more extensive and academic research in university libraries.

Not really I did a search on line came up with a lot of cites that had very little to do with Denmark or the peace movement during WWII. I have done a search at U of M library and found little information. Perhaps I need to write the book on it.

There is also quite a bit on non-violent resistance on-line, but not a lot on WWII.

Very much true. Most of the info was post WWII.

 

[theIdi0t]

I am not called to be like Christ, I am called to serve Christ.

That there is a place for the warrior servant, like David the man after God's own heart . . . not a messiah as there can be only one . . . not a sheep or sheeple . .. not perfect, but redeemed . . . a man flawed in fact and faithful at heart, on whom each sin weighs - but weighs less than the measure of grace? I was reading a passage in my copy of the Hagakure, about compassion. How is it that I can strive to have so much in common with David & in fact have so much more in common with his mighty man Uriah . . . and be opposed to the will of God?

Unlike most of the others here, I served in the military. And on Memorial Day the church I attend, holds a special service, for servicemen to stand, and be honored. And I've always refused to stand. A friend of mine asked the other day, why I never stand during these services. I told him that I believe the whole thing is idolatry, and the worst form of idolatry.

Most people have this allusion that one can build a man who kills, and this man can still retain his soul. I've seen men who have killed, and the hell their eyes seem to show, tell me other wise, and in no way can I call this Godly.

When I was trained as Marine, we used to sing a cadence while we ran, it went something like this:

Burn the town and kill the people
Throw some napalm in the square
Do it on a Sunday morning
While the people are at prayer
Throw some candy in the school yard
Watch the kiddies gather 'round
Slap a mag in your M-16
And mow those little f*&^%# down

If you want to say that God advocates actions that lead fathers, sons, brothers to a hell on earth, then by all mean be a sheep-dog.

 

[DavinMochrie]

This is shocking to me..

that there are Christians here who see Jesus as a war Lord that brings the sword?



What kind of teachings is that?

It's so contradictory to Jesus's whole life and death. He was a healer and a uniter. He Preached Love Thy Neighbour.

Was it love thy neighbour whilst sticking a sword in his guts?

It seems that people can and do, twist the words of the bible to their own end, to justify their modern day priorities.

I guess it all started when the Roman Empire adopted the religion.

Perhaps lovers on the modern day Empires also use their religion to justify their way of life.

People seem to be able to parrot out lines of the bible off by heart, but the teachings of Jesus have not sunk in.

 

[chris777]

This is shocking to me..

that there are Christians here who see Jesus as a war Lord that brings the sword?

What kind of teachings is that?

It's so contradictory to Jesus's whole life and death. He was a healer and a uniter. He Preached Love Thy Neighbour.

In the season we are currently in now I would agree, however when Christ returns, it is the sword he will weld.

We are told to seek the lost and preach the Gospel to all nations, the scriptures state it is the angels who shall reap that harvest.

Was it love thy neighbour whilst sticking a sword in his guts?

I dont understand that mentality either, how do you share the Good news at the end of a sword?

It seems that people can and do, twist the words of the bible to their own end, to justify their modern day priorities.

its really nothing new under the sun as stated below

I guess it all started when the Roman Empire adopted the religion.

Perhaps lovers on the modern day Empires also use their religion to justify their way of life.

I dont hear that from people, its more of a forgetting of who it is that vengance belongs to.
so many seek to deal it out they forget that our brand of it is decidedly lacking in comparison to God. its impatience

People seem to be able to parrot out lines of the bible off by heart, but the teachings of Jesus have not sunk in.

nothing new under the sun again.

The Jews did not recognize their savior when he was standing in front of the min the face, how much more blind are we who grew up as converts, when they were born into the faith?