However, the act of war, one realm against another, has no justification in our LORD's teachings. The concept of a "just war" is a human rationalization. At its heart lies an assumption that one side of the conflict has the blessing of GOD, and that those who fight against that side deserve to die. Governments on both sides of the conflict press into service those who are brothers in Christ; to be willing to kill one's brother rather than to die for one's brother is an alien concept for the true children of GOD.
Nevertheless, it is more in keeping with our LORD's example that we would give our lives for our enemies rather than take their lives, even while enforcing laws. That a life might be taken to prevent the killing of others is a possible action under this scenario, but never that a life might be taken in self-defense.
There are those who have loved their country and obeyed their LORD. They have served bravely and quietly in the armed forces of our nation, more often than not suffering persecution for their refusal to kill other men, as they labored to save the lives of battlefield casualties. Most are unsung; few speak of their service. I would like to dedicate this post to my brave brothers who were willing to give their lives that others might live.
Desmond Doss was a Seventh-Day Adventist who believed that GOD would not want him to take a human life, but that GOD also expected him to do his duty to his nation. He enlisted, became a medic, suffered abuse from his fellow soldiers (because he would not carry a weapon), fought a Section 8 discharge (because he was accused of insanity for not working on Saturday), and became the only World War II CO to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. His story can be read here :http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_doss2.html
Tom Bennett was a Southern Baptist who believed that it was wrong to take the life of another person. He was drafted (1-A-O), trained as a medic, and was posted to Vietnam and killed in action, and was the only Vietnam War CO to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. His story can be read here:http://www.historynet.com/magazines/vietnam/3026546.html?page=1&c=y
"Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends"
You said: “I have reason to believe that the use of force may at times be necessary for the protection of the weak and innocent.” But if you are weak and innocent you don’t have the right to protect and defend yourself? That’s convoluted logic right there. Protection is supposed to be the government’s job? So if your wife or child is being raped and murdered the government is supposed to stop the attacker in the act while you stand by and let it happen? Wow, I would think your family would have no respect for you at all, if that were truly your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteYou said:”Nevertheless, it is more in keeping with our LORD's example that we would give our lives for our enemies rather than take their lives, even while enforcing laws.” I think that’s wrong also. Nowhere, ever, in the Bible does the LORD or any of His apostles state that we should die for someone while enforcing laws. Christ did not die while enforcing the law. Christ died to appease the wrath of God for all. When He comes the second time, then He will be enforcing the law, and I can show you in the Bible where He will not be dying then. I believe He is going to kill a bunch of people at this place called Armageddon.
Your argument is completely contrary to the command that the guilty pay for their sins, and that THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN EVER PAY FOR ANOTHER’S CRIMES MUST BE COMPLETELY INNOCENT. Show me an innocent cop or soldier and I’ll show you a cop or soldier who can properly die for the sake of the person who kills him/her. By the way, the cop or soldier does not have the right to die for the other person because they are required to enforce the laws of their nation. The government doesn’t pay me to go out and die. The sheriff has given us an order. “No one shall die while on duty.” I intend to abide by that order. (P.S. – I’m on duty 24/7.)
As for the command for a Christian to love their enemy, this never means that you can’t enforce both the law of God and the law of the nation to prevent a worse harm. Government is actually supposed to emulate the way a family protects its members. We don’t have the right to harm someone who leaves our family alone, but we never allow someone to bring harm to our family. Incidentally, the people who speak most sanctimoniously about loving their enemy most often harbor the deadliest of sins – pride. You can’t hate someone unless you are proud, and you can’t love someone WHILE you are proud.
Doss and Bennet have the right to declare their beliefs – they lived and died for them while defending and protecting their fellow soldiers. Have you ever defended or protected anyone in your life?
Don’t give me that pacifist crap that Jesus wouldn’t want you to fight because it might kill someone. He told his disciples to go get swords just before he was arrested. I guarantee you it wasn’t to cut bread.
You know what really upsets me about this posting the most, is that you are so arrogant in your assertions but you have never done anything to protect your family from those who have done them harm.
Another thing that kills me is that your oldest daughter is infuriated by the lack of protection as she grew in your household but now follows the same foolish teachings that spawned this dribble about how Christ-like it is to be a coward.
But hey what do I know, I read the King James Version of the Bible: maybe you read from another translation.
Jim
1. I am aware of my failures and have no excuse.
ReplyDelete2. It could be that you are making a good argument that a Christian should not be involved in enforcing the government's laws. I've been wondering about that. You have clarified something for me.
3. The act of protecting another person (separately from protecting oneself) is a responsibility devolving to each individual. My statement was, "That a life might be taken to prevent the killing of others is a possible action under this scenario, but never that a life might be taken in self-defense." You have erected a straw man in your first paragraph, attributing to me something which I did not say or even imply. Please re-read carefully what I did say.
4. There is a good argument to be made that the only purpose for the swords in the Garden of Gethsemane was so that Jesus would be in the company of men resisting arrest : "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say unto you that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, 'And he was reckoned among the transgressors'..." (Luke 22:36-37, KJV). Context is important.
5. The events of John 13-15 (KJV) are very clear with respect to the fact that Jesus had offered the bread and wine as a symbol of his offering of His body and blood on behalf of all men. It is there that He charges His disciples with following His example, and says, (John 15:13-14, KJV) "Greater lover hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Followed closely by verse 17 (also KJV), "These things I command you, that ye love one another." The failure to recognize this is behind Paul's message to the Corinthians, especially I Cor. 11:23-29. The whole problem in the Corinthian church was pride, evidenced by those who felt themselves as more spiritual flaunting their liberties in front of those who were more cautious.
6. I do read from other translations. The KJV is a very good translation, but it follows in most places word for word from Tyndale's work. It is interesting to compare it with the Geneva Bible (which follows Wycliffe's work more so than Tyndale's). James I ordered the new translation because he was infuriated over the marginal notes inserted by Calvin and Beza in the Geneva Bible, especially the statement that the Hebrew midwives were right in disobeying Pharaoh. James I considered himself a divine right king who should be obeyed without question. The Puritans brought the Geneva Bible to America with them, and it colored their perceptions up through the mid-1700's. The Geneva/Puritan idea derived from Wycliffe was that government is responsible to the people, and conflicted with the KJV/Anglican (English Catholic) idea that people are responsible to the government; this was a major factor leading to the Revolutionary War.
7. History is not kind to anyone.
8. Infuriation is bad for the heart. Calm down.
Can't believe I'm gonna comment on this, cuz it seems like the water's getting pretty deep already...
ReplyDeleteWe had a very interesting discussion about CO at our church's last men's retreat (including the question of "What would you do if a bad guy broke into your house to rape your wife? What would Christ do? etc).
Picture a bunch of die hard country hunters with closets full of guns trying to correctly interpret Titus 3:1, Romans 13:1-7, Colossians 1:15-17, & 1 Peter 2:13-21 (actually the whole chapter). The discussion probably wasn't as passionate, but there certainly were understandable arguments made for both sides. If I sat there and thought about it with an open mind, I could see both sides (similar to being able to see arguments both for pre-trib and post-trib, etc).
I'm not sure what the whole KJV thing has to do with CO though. I'm happy to read any version, and for portions that I don't understand its nice to read a few versions. Actually, I enjoy it most when somebody more learn-ed than myself can correctly interpret the Greek or Hebrew for me. It wouldn't work to try and read it in either of the original languages, would be much too choppy. But it is nice to go back to the original from time to time for expounding and clarification.
Dad, the only issue I see is that you may have a hard time being elected President as a CO, so your earlier post about dreaming of a run for President will have to remain a dream. Too bad, we need somebody to give Hillary a run for her money.
And Jim, I hope I never come to visit and you mistake me for a criminal late at night. I'd be toast.
hp