Many of the people who are held up as (imperfect) examples of faithfulness in the Old Testament did violent things either under the command of God or without the condemnation of God. Abraham was a warrior (Genesis 14). Moses was a warrior (Numbers 21). David was a warrior. Elijah was a warrior (1 Kings 18).
None of this justifies our involvement in war per se. However, with that standard in place Jesus would need to be pretty darn clear on the issue to make sure his followers (raised to revere such men) would be absolutely clear on the issue. And I don’t think he is.
Some will certainly point to the Sermon on the Mount and wonder how much clearer Jesus would need to be. “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” “Love your enemies.”
From my perspective, it is clear enough to lean that way, but not clear enough to be dogmatic about it.
Here’s why it remains somewhat murky to me. No one is ever commanded to leave military service. No one is condemned for their military service. Just the opposite, Jesus was ready to risk uncleanness to help one (Luke 7:1-10). And of course, Peter preached in a soldier’s home without mention (in our text at least) of the sin of war (Acts 10).
And most baffling for anyone who would believe Jesus to be staunchly anti-violence is his command in Luke 22:36-38 (if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one…).
When is war okay? When is violence acceptable? I don’t know the answers to that. I’m mostly anti-war and anti-violence. It’s these couple of things that keep me from becoming one of the extremists*.
*I don’t intend to associate the negative connotations that are usually related to that term. Being an extremist can be very good thing, a very bad thing, and even something in the middle.
Posts
1 comment:
Being anti-war myself, I will address your argument concerning the silence of Scripture. I will let an OT expert address the OT stuff.
I would risk my life to help a soldier. Just because someone lives a lifestyle that we believe is wrong does not mean that we would not help him.
I would spend time teaching a soldier and probably would not address the soldier issue. That will fall in place once the individual commits themselves to loving their friends, enemies, and everyone in between.
The focus needs to be on love and not war. Being anti-war just seems to be a natural offshoot of loving everyone.
To me, the greatest problem is the practical dilemma of the "bad guy." If I do not stop the "bad guy", he might continue to destroy the lives of others. By being loving to him and not killing him, I might be enabling others to be hurt. In the end, my love for him might be unloving for all of those he hurts in the future. I argue that I cannot control his actions in the future. All I can control is being loving to the people I find myself with at the present moment in time. What they do after that moment is out of my control and what they have done prior to that moment is covered by grace. My job is to love them.
Post a Comment