These words from Paul might also be worth considering:
When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!
If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? (1 Cor 6.1-7)
Sarah Lynne
· 5 months ago
Thanks for bringing up those verses. I have been thinking of that as well. To suffer wrong doesn't seem to be an option brought up in any circles, secular or Christian, but Paul says that like it is obvious to him that we should be ok with suffering wrong. That is incredibly hard for me to do.
I wonder as well, why he just says this about disputes between believers. Does that mean taking non-believers to court is ok?
paul munn
· 5 months ago
I think it's just more obvious what we should do when it is our brothers and sisters. Jesus goes a lot further with his teachings about "love your enemies" in the sermon on the mount. Now that I think about it, Paul says much the same in Romans:
Repay no one evil for evil... Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12.17-21)
I find it hard to see how we can take these words seriously and still call the police.
Last night we watched "Dead Man Walking" with the teenagers here at the farm. (Great movie, by the way.) And it seems pretty easy to see how executing someone, even someone who committed a terrible crime, is not the way of Jesus. Yet it's not as easy to see that non-lethal violence (or the threat of it), like the police often use, is also opposed to Jesus' way. And even if we would reject fighting for ourselves in that way ("turning the other cheek" instead), we often seem willing to call someone else in to do it for us.
Joan Ball
· 5 months ago
I know many addicts and alcoholics who say that their sobriety hinged on their arrest and even incarceration. When they share their stories, they frequently express gratitude for the "bottom" that might not have come without it. Something to keep in mind when discussing showing love, since firm boundaries can be the greatest love of all. I got sober when my now husband of 13 years, then my boyfriend, threatened to kick me to the curb. Was it love? I say yes. Did it look and feel like it at the time? It did not.
Sarah Lynne
· 5 months ago
Joan,
The point you make is part of why I struggle with this question. I have heard about these stories as well, though in my limited experience I still don't know anyone for whom this has been true.
So how do we decide that is the right time to do this? It seems to me that this is a fine line to walk. Yes, at times it may be most loving to say to someone, "I know this isn't helping you, so you have to leave." Maybe even to say that you need to call the police (I'm less certain about that), but I'm pretty sure I, and our society, jump to that conclusion fairly quickly, without having any imagination (or the courage!) to consider and carry out other ways of action.
Furthermore, I would question whether results prove the Christ-like-ness of an action. I believe that God is able to work in people's lives even through things and people who aren't being completely faithful to him. I would wonder if these people look to the people who originally called the police as being a witness of Christ to them. They, and we, may want to deem them so after the fact because it makes us easier to justify and remain content within out system of justice, but it could just as easily be the case of God is working in spite of ourselves (or maybe comparable to Paul's speculation about using clay pots that are meant to be broken). I'm not sure its Christians' job to devise the most efficient way to fix a problem (and besides that I would be surprised if jail time proved the most efficient way, considering all the stories and research that doesn't show so many redeeming results), but it is Christian's job to live into God's kingdom and be Christ's ambassadors.
That last sentence was a loaded statement, so to state each thought separately... I would question whether that kind of anecdotal evidence is a good reasoning for supporting and using our justice system as a rule. I'd also question whether someone's action leading to something good necessarily means that the action is Christ-like. It seems like Paul consistently allows for that not to be true (and we see that kind of ambiguous situation in both the new and old testament). I'd want to keep in mind that we aren't saviors, but a group of people who live according to and point towards God's kingdom.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
I agree, Sarah. It often is important for people (not just alcoholics, either) to "hit bottom" to help them begin to change. But there are plenty of ways for this to happen, plenty of natural consequences to their actions, without us turning them over to the guys with the clubs and guns. And there are other things we can do in love (like not encouraging or supporting their self-destructive behavior) that doesn't lock them up with other offenders who don't love them at all.
We should also recall how Jesus responded to Judas. Judas eventually hit bottom (though in that case it didn't lead to repentance), but Jesus did not try to forcibly stop him or even turn the other disciples against him. Practicing what he preached: "Do not resist one who is evil." (Mt 5.39)
Maria Kirby
· 5 months ago
Paul, The scripture you quoted affirms Christian desire to seek justice. It puts a limit on how that is to be done. Since both parties of the dispute are Christians, Paul commends that they seek justice through the Church. He expects both parties to submit to the decisions of the Church because of their commitment to Christ.
Worldly justice is enforced through threat (or actual) violence. If there were no attempt made at justice, this would be a very mean world indeed. We can see a small cosmos of what a world without limits would look like when we observe different parenting strategies. Families where boundaries are not enforced have very unruly children which grow up to be problems in society. The Apostle Paul talks about how as adults we are grateful for the discipline of our parents and how it makes us better persons. I don't know that we necessarily have to use violence to discipline our children, but our ability to enforce any disciple becomes less when our children become bigger and stronger than we are.
I feel that when we report crimes to the police, and pursue worldly justice we limit the damage evil can do. We protect the innocent from having to bear the wounds of someone else's sin. Forgiving is hard work. I don't want to have to forgive any more than is necessary. And I wouldn't want create a situation by my inaction where someone else had to do the hard work of forgiving.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
You make a broad assumption, Maria, when you say that the police "limit the damage evil can do." Sometimes that is true. And sometimes it is not; sometimes the police (and often the prison system) increase the damage of evil, either in their own evil actions or by treating people in a way that drives them deeper into evil.
And the "limit" God puts on our response is not "refrain from retaliation or violence yourself, but leave it to the criminal justice system," it is "leave it to the wrath of God" (and also the insight and wisdom of God, and the mercy of God).
I agree that justice is desired and limits on wrongdoing are needed, often physical (even violent) limits. But there is no danger of most people suddenly following Jesus' example and turning the other cheek, leaving the criminals to wreak havoc. There will always be a vast majority of people ready to strike back, fight for their property and their rights, and violently punish wrongdoers. And while I think that most of the time the reasons for this striking back are not selfless or righteous (or truly "for justice"), I believe God uses this unrighteous response to restrain evil and bring some justice. He turns selfish men against selfish men, violent men against violent men, and brings from it some good. This does not, however, make their purposes or their means good. Jesus shows us what doing good really means.
And it's his example we're supposed to follow, right?
Maria Kirby
· 5 months ago
Right, Now shall I get a whip and drive out the money changers? bankers? stockbrokers? Oh, my!
Please, I hope you are not suggesting we forget everything but the gospels.
Florence
· 5 months ago
At the same time, Paul encourages the church to uphold God's righteousness in who we fellowship into the church. See 1 Cor. 5:11 "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." We as a church are called to hold accountable those calling themselves "brothers" who are clearly exploitive people. In the case of domestic violence for instance, the church has a long history of listening to both sides and then putting the victim further at risk when she is home alone with the perpetrator. LIkewise, todays "wise men" church leaders are just as likely to consider a report of a sexual assault a "trivial" enough matter to handle competently but I believe there is a difference in what we know as "civil" cases where one man takes another to court, and "criminal" cases, where the state has to act to protect the community from on-going evil. We are not called to show grace towards behaviors in the church that even heathens would abhor. We are called to put that brother out of the church. Paul says.. . "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . .I decree that you geive such an individual over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the LOrd". See 1 Cor. 5:1-8. We are to be careful to be Spirit-;ed even in showing grace appropriately for the salvation of souls at stake.
Sarah Lynne
· 5 months ago
I don't think anyone here is arguing against holding people within the church accountable. At least, that isn't what I'm discussing in the article.
Maria Kirby
· 5 months ago
Florence, I would like to suggest that human justice is a form of grace. If our sins deserve death, then anything less is a form of mercy if not grace. We can show grace and still hold people accountable for their actions.
Maria Kirby
· 5 months ago
The whole point of discipline to get the subject to change their behavior. A change in behavior happens a whole lot faster when there is repentance. Sometimes repentance comes when a person empathizes with the victim, other times it takes some painful consequences. What those consequences are, who administers them, and when are the issues addressed by our governing system. And believe it or not, our governing/justice system does have avenues of grace built into it.
Florence Davis
· 5 months ago
"I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness." 1 Tim. 2:2 We are to pray for our flawed government system that these authorities will serve to keep the peace and help enforce our civil liberties.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
I agree we should pray for those in worldly authority, and submit to them (i.e. don't work to overthrow them, and accept their punishments).
But we should keep in mind that governmental authorities were the ones who crucified Jesus. And "submitting" to them is not the same as always obeying them, and definitely not the same as actively cooperating with them (as we do when we turn people over to the criminal justice system).
Sarah Lynne
· 5 months ago
I think it is interesting here that Paul specifically says to pray for them to live "peaceful" lives. The ESV (I believe) says "peaceful and quiet lives." That is not something I hear people pray in church very often (if ever) and is an odd request for people in such public positions.
I wouldn't argue with praying the authorities make good decisions, but I'm not sure "peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness" translates to enforcement of anything. It seems to be praying something personal for them as individuals. Again though, I also agree with Paul that I think we should submit to authorities and pay them respect when it is due.
Maria Kirby
· 5 months ago
A lot of national problems are actually personal problems on a national scale.
Facebook User
· 4 months ago
Lot of truth to that...
Nathanael Snow
· 5 months ago
I was confronted with this last night. Someone was doing "peel-outs" and "skids" in their new car all around our neighborhood. I joined the throng pacing the streets and alleys looking for the culprit's car. We found it, empty, with tires still hot. Everyone hiked over to the house where we knew a policeman lived. Our complaints were voiced and he explained the different options available. "I can go give them a warning, or you can take out a reckless driving warrant." I left the conversation shortly after. The others must have come to some conclusion of their own. Around the block I found two young men sitting on their stoop. I knew them to be the culprits. "Did you guys see that car zipping through here?" ""No" "Really? They were peeling out all over the place!" -Blank stares.- "Well, I was really concerned, because, you know, I've got two little kids, and a lot of people around here have dogs. I just don't want anyone to get hurt." "Yeah." "Some other residents were talking about taking out a warrant or something." "Huh." "Well, I'll see you later."
I guess I did better than some might, but I felt like there was still an opportunity missed. I mean, they were outside! They knew they were in the wrong, they just got carried away in their foolishness, and they were going out to face the world. Whether brazenly, with attitude, and festering resentment toward their neighbors, or under grace, apologetic, and redeemed. The power lay in my hands.
Lord, forgive them now. And forgive me for a missed opportunity.
Al1
· 5 months ago
Nathanael, I think that is a perfect example of the situations we face daily. It seems easier to extend grace to someone for their sin against God than for a sin against me. It's the personal injustices that cause my 'righteous indignation' to rise up, and want to do something. To teach the person a lesson, to let them know they need to change their ways. And the stick we wield needs to be big enough to accomplish that task, so we use the forces at our disposal--police, military, or whatever. But that isn't grace, and it doesn't allow much place for God to truly change their hearts, not just their actions. I think your action was definitely better than it might have been. I think it probably takes time and experience to change our conditioned responses of 'law and order' into 'neither do i condemn you'.
Daniel Williams
· 5 months ago
On a personal level for me if someone steals my "stuff" I'm not going to worry about it. I will take the lump and go on, but I think when the crime turns toward hurting others such as sexual assault and murder it is different. I think the police need to be called and I also believe it is our duty as Chrisitians and as a memeber of the human race to do so. Remember, we as humans have the likeness of God in us and that is sacred. In Genesis Chapter 9 when God is making his covenant with Noah he says in verses 5-7, "And I will require the blood of anyone who takes another person's life. If a wild animal kills a person, it must die. If anyone takes a human life, that persons life will be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image."
Now I know this brings up the argument about the death penalty and I am not trying to stir that pot. But I do believe people that committ crimes like sexual assault and murder need to be stopped before others are hurt. I have interviewed victims of sexual assaults in depth in relation to my career field. Alot of the times they describe the assault as "something in them died."
However I do believe the bible speaks very clearly to Christians calling the "police" on Christians and I do not believe that should be done except in cases of murder other related heinous acts. The last thing that is needed is serial pedophiles, serial rapist, and serial murders loose because Christians refuse to call the police when they may hold the information needed to stop them.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
I don't think anyone questions the need to "do something" to help, Daniel, especially when someone is violently threatened. The question is whether calling the police is the best thing to do.
We don't have a lot of clear examples from Jesus' life to follow concerning this, but there is the incident with the woman caught in adultery. Her life was in jeopardy. But Jesus did not intervene violently, or even physically (he did not physically "get in the way," as some groups suggest we do). He did do something, though. And he did end up stopping the violence, even though they thought they were compelled by the law to stone her.
Now that I think of it, there's also the example of Jesus' response when John the Baptist was in prison and sent word to Jesus ("Are you the one?"). And this might respond to your "must be stopped" argument. I suspect in this story that John was asking if Jesus was the one who would fulfill the prophetic promise that the savior would "proclaim freedom to prisoners" (Is 61, and Lk 4). John would probably care a lot about that right then. But Jesus does not storm the prison or even protest that John has been imprisoned unjustly. And John is executed. Why didn't Jesus stop it? (Was there really nothing he could do?) Is he also guilty of this blood?
To John (and to our questions), Jesus replies, "Blessed is he who takes no offense at me."
Maria Kirby
· 5 months ago
That's quite a stretch, Paul. I agree with Daniel on this one. There is a reason God gives us rulers. I believe they are a gift of God also which we should use for the betterment of society.
markvans
· 5 months ago
It seems a stretch to me to see rulers as a give used for the betterment of society...it is more biblical, if one wants to take Romans 12-13 as a cornerstone for Christian understanding of government, to see rulers as a tool of God's judgment of sinners. The question is: what do we do with that?
Jim Marks
· 5 months ago
It makes no sense to use Jesus' life as the guide for questions regarding "police" when no such concept existed at the time. He lived in a world full of temple guards, vigil ante religious zealots, and Roman soldiers. None of these represent a remotely reasonable analog for our contemporary police. To say that because Jesus did not institute a political uprising to free John the Baptist from prison, we ought to assume we should never involve the police in matters of criminal violence is intellectual nonsense. That's confusing notions of advocacy for political justice with notions of public safety. John the Baptist was a political prisoner being held by an occupying power. It makes a great deal of sense that Jesus would have not -thrown his life away- on a suicide mission to free him, when the only alternative would have been to abuse his divine nature to free -one- political prisoner in a world of thousands of them.
But there is a not too fine line between doing our best to promote peace, and actively fostering an environment which allows violence to thrive. Refusing to involve law enforcement on some kind of religious grounds is neither social justice nor an avoidance of being "of the world", it is merely becoming part of the problem that allows violence to prosper.
I disagree with Maria, G-d does not give us rulers. The Old Testament history of Israel makes it quite clear that G-d did not want Israel to have a king, warned them against asking for a king, and promised them that they would regret it if they insisted. Obviously, they did regret it.
But again, the police have nothing to do with rule. They are not an occupying power, they are not soldiers, nor are they vigil antes with stones seeking to enact Mosaic Law.
Yes, it is quite true that when Jesus was wrongly accused and framed, even to death, he did nothing to defend himself. Yes, it is quite true that Jesus did not spend his time rushing from court to court advocating social justice for everyone else who had been framed or unjustly accused. When Jesus said "the poor will be with you always" I believe part of what he was saying was to not make the mistake of turning our lives into an endless, exhausting quest to right every wrong to the expense of all joy or happiness we might experience (since he is only with us for a short time).
But to suggest that helping the police to curtail violence somehow falls outside our calling runs completely counter to the idea of building the kingdom. How can we build the kingdom while our heads are being smashed in?
Gandhi and MLKjr. used -shame- as a tactic to produce change and to reduce violence in the long term. They had to endure short term violence, even deaths, to produce that shame and to produce the change they desired. The Dali Lama has pointed out that similar tactics would be useless in attempting to free Tibet, because the PRC has no shame. They have wantonly slaughtered thousands, maybe millions, of Tibetans and do not care. They are actively displacing the entire population of the country to propagate the myth that Tibet is inherently Chinese. Tactics other than non-violence, active resistance are necessary to -prevent- ongoing, never ending violence.
Certain violent criminals have no shame. Jesus was able to prevent the stoning of the woman caught in adultery because he was able to shame the vigil antes into recognizing their hypocrisy. Pick any infamous criminal you like, a similar tactic could not have been used to prevent their crimes.
It isn't a question of justifying violence as a means to a peaceful end. It is simply a matter of recognizing that some peaceful actions create an environment in which violence thrives, and some not so peaceful actions create an environment in which violence has no place. Good policing can play a vital part in this.
Our job is to ensure policing is done -correctly- and that it does not become part of the problem, not to pretend it is unnecessary.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
"But again, the police have nothing to do with rule." You're going to have to explain this one, Jim, because it seems pretty obvious that the police are the main enforcers used by rulers. I like what you said before this line, but you lost me there.
And: "How can we build the kingdom while our heads are being smashed in?" Great question. It is precisely the question that the cross puts to us.
That is all disturbingly bleak. You're basically saying that our choices are between oppression at the hands of violent criminals or from inherently oppressive governments (to say the police are the enforcers of rule is to make them indistinguishable from the military), and that the core of our faith is to become a martyr to one or the other.
If we aren't meant to be building the kingdom, then I guess I won't bother with social justice anymore, apparently G-d's got that all taken care of. Which is good, since apparently I'm expected to be dead sooner rather than later.
markvans
· 5 months ago
That's a tish melodramatic, Jim. I think there is a prophetic imagination we can adopt that keeps us from such a bleak forecast. However, if the Church is going to gain such an imagination it will require that we join in real solidarity with the oppressed rather than simply trying to wield the systems of oppression in a more just manner. As Jon Sobrino suggest: there is no salvation outside of the poor. We must enter into the stories of the Crucified ones in order to become the Crucified ones ourselves...and therein lies our salvation, and therein lies justice.
Jim Marks
· 5 months ago
It is intended to be melodramatic. The picture being painted has no hope in it except for a gifted kingdom that clearly isn't "real" in any meaningful sense to the poor, or anyone else. We have no choice but to join into real solidarity with the oppressed, according to this picture we -are- the oppressed and so is everyone who isn't an active part of the ruling system itself.
I'm not saying the solution is a more just form or rule, that's futile. I'm saying that to equate the police with the military with a primary task to oppress rather than to protect renders the whole world into black and white, with only two groups: those who rule, and those who are oppressed. Under this image, even Bill Gates is part of the oppressed because he isn't part of the government or the military or the police. It is simply too stark of a model to give us any room to act out the hope to which we are called. In fact the implication has been made that we aren't called to hope, we're called to martyrdom. There is no justice in martyrdom. Only death. If that's what this is really about then I'm not interested.
Joshua Douglas Ellens
· 4 months ago
It seem to me the only one making things so black and white here is you, Jim.
I also don't understand how you think there is no justice in martyrdom. If our Justice - in the biblical (true) sense - comes from Christ, who continually pointed us to self-sacrifice and called us to follow him even to the cross, then is martyrdom not THE SOURCE of (real, unadulterated) Justice?
paul munn
· 5 months ago
Well yes, Jim, I suppose the cross might look a bit bleak (and Jesus' line, "take up your cross and follow me"). But many of us have come to see that in a different light, right?
Actually, I think the good news that Jesus brought, that "the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Mt 12.28) is not bleak at all. To me, the idea that it is up to us to build the kingdom is much bleaker. I've seen what has been accomplished by our efforts and I'm not impressed. I've seen the social justice workers burning themselves out for minor gains (and then dropping the grass roots activism and going for the presidency instead--where he can really make some changes). That's not what Jesus announced for us, a lifelong struggle for piecemeal gains. He proclaimed that God is giving us the kingdom. Persecution, even death, is nothing in comparison to that. Isn't that the revelation of Easter?
Justice is not in our (weak, very fallible) hands. Justice is securely in God's hands.
Jim Marks
· 5 months ago
The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces the kingdom of G-d to a metaphor. If it is a gift, and it is here, and it has been here all this time, then it is clearly doing very few people very much good in any sense that has any meaning within space-time. So to me, that looks far more bleak than the idea that being reconciled to G-d and actually having an interest in making a difference (which I certainly wouldn't have otherwise) can be propagated to others. True, not nearly enough have actually done this and little has been accomplished, but wouldn't it be far -worse- otherwise?
We're a long way from where we started. I think it is one thing to understand that we aren't supposed to seek to preserve our own life and that we must be willing to suffer injustice even to destruction, but that it is another thing entirely to believe that we aren't supposed to make any attempt to preserve anyone else's, either. How can we show any meaningful solidarity with the oppressed if we make it clear we're going to do nothing to prevent their oppression? If all we offer them is a metaphoric hope of a just kingdom outside of this life? I just can't find a way to make that add up at all.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
Not sure what you're replying to, Jim. I don't think anyone said we should do nothing about oppression or preserving life. Just because we don't think calling the police is the best way to respond to oppression (or to save life) doesn't mean we suggest doing nothing. Really, the argument is that there are other things to do that are better than calling the police. Jesus is our example in this.
And the kingdom is not a metaphor. It was lived by Jesus and his disciples, and by many of his followers since then. Look at Jesus' life, it was visibly, concretely very different in choices and actions and experiences than the lives we are used to seeing.
If you do not experience the reality of this yourself, and you conclude that Jesus did not give us the kingdom to experience now, then that is your choice. But I will continue to say that Jesus offered us lives like his, and that is good news indeed.
Jim Marks
· 5 months ago
What I'm responding to is that I don't see anything in this discussion about what we -should- do, only about what we should -not- do. You keep citing back to Jesus as the model. Jesus took, essentially, no actions against violence and oppression, at least not in the accounts provided to us. We have one instance of him preventing a religious mob from stoning a woman, and that's about it. So it sounds to me very much like you are saying that we are called to do nothing. His interaction with the religious mob utilized the shame method of prevention. We see this more contemporaneously in the methods of Gandhi and MLKjr with their non-violent resistance. This tactic does not work against all forms of violence. We have, as far as I am aware, no accounts of Jesus acting to prevent genuine evil. If the accounts of Jesus' life are our one and only model then I don't see how we cannot conclude that we are expected to do nothing to prevent genuine evil.
And while it may be true that we are called to live -like- Jesus lived, we cannot. And so while it may be true that Jesus lived the kingdom, we cannot. We can strive towards it, but we cannot achieve it. This is what I mean by building. The work we put in towards the goal - a goal we cannot reach, because remain flawed in spite of our redemption. So if the only hope to living the kingdom, and thus share its justice with the oppressed, is to live -exactly- as Jesus did, then that is no hope at all.
I'm hard pressed to see any hope or good news for us, or for the oppressed in these ideas. So there must, then, be a piece I've over looked that is the clear path to preventing evil as well as overcoming our limited, humanity in order to live precisely as Jesus did.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
It sounds like the real issue is whether or not we can actually follow Jesus' example (I assume you think we should, and would want to, if we can). The lack of hope you express is because you believe we cannot actually live like him?
But didn't Jesus say "follow me" and "the kingdom has come upon you"? Was he taunting us? What about "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do" (Jn 14.12)?
Jesus offered himself and his teaching as good news, as true hope for the oppressed. Shouldn't we believe, and do the same?
Maria Kirby
· 5 months ago
Jim, You are right that God was not in favor of Israel having a king, and their first king was a disaster. However, when I read the prophets I get a much different picture of God's attitude towards rulers. Rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar were instruments of God's justice, Darius and Cyrus were praised. Even when I read Chronicles I get the picture that it was the king's duty to lead the people to God. It sort of fits into Jesus parables of being a good shepherd; that the ordinary populace will go astray if they are not led by a good ruler, one with a rod and staff.
The extent to which earthly governing reflects or should reflect the kingdom of God and in what way is a debate that goes back to the church's beginnings. The reformation marked a significant turning point in people's ideas about who and how earthly power should be used to enforce/bring in the kingdom of God. I suspect it will continue to be debated until Jesus returns. Hopefully the debate will be like iron sharpening iron into a sword of truth that pierces to the heart.
I think your observations about the effectiveness of various non-violent methods is spot on. I think you also make a good observation about the distinction between police and military. But I'm not sure how we could have police without a governing body or rulers.
Zack Allen
· 4 months ago
God isn't against rulers. Jesus is, after-all, our King. When it comes to earthly governments, however, I'm not of the opinion that God sets these up to use them. He simply uses them as He finds them.
Boyd argues the Samuel passage illustrates human governments are a result of people rejecting God's rule. In addition to several other points, he also argues (based on Romans 12-13) that God's "establishing" of governments can simply mean that He uses them as He finds them.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
Jim asked what we should do, instead of calling the police. And perhaps Sarah also had that question in mind when writing this article. It's an important (and more constructive) question.
I don't think this can be answered easily, or generally for all situations. But some observations from Jesus' life may be helpful to us as we try to hear how God might be leading us in some particular situation. As Jim pointed out, Jesus did not seem compelled to prevent evil from happening. I think he certainly did much, in word and example, to try to convince people not to do evil and convert them to do good. But when they chose evil anyway, he did not physically (or with a legion of angels) step in to stop it. And his actions in this regard matched his teaching, "Do not resist one who is evil." (Mt 5.39)
This, I believe, points to a difference in how Jesus viewed the problem of evil. It seems that, to him, evil was not "bad things that happen to people." Those bad things that happen were rather symptoms of the evil that exists within people. The external violence or injustice points to the very real evil in us. Jesus expresses this in his interpretation of the Law in the sermon on the mount, especially clearly in his line, "I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The evil is in the intent, not just the external action.
We can see from this why Jesus would not choose physical (or otherwise coercive) means to stop evil. He wants to root evil out of hearts, and coercively "preventing" evil intentions from being carried out does not reduce the evil intent, but often actually increases it (hence, the "cycle of violence"). Jesus chooses means to respond that go to the heart of the matter, the root of evil. Such as courageously rebuking powerful oppressors, revealing to all the evil in their hearts, and drawing out their wrath (towards him, which he does not reciprocate) to make the hidden evil visible and obvious—obviously wrong. His innocent (and non-resistant) suffering and death at the hands of evil-intentioned men is the extreme example of this response. The desire is that people will recognize the evil within themselves, and repent, turn away from it.
This also presents the situation of the "victim" in a different light. If evil is truly "in your heart," in our intentions, then evil cannot be imposed on us forcefully from the outside. If evil is in us, it is in our own desires and choices, not in what is done to us. We cannot be made evil or corrupted by evil unless we choose to let it into our own hearts. Now, often when evil-intentioned acts are done to us, we do let evil into us, responding with vengeance or hatred. It is difficult not to do so. But Jesus' example (and his presence in us) shows us how we, like him, can resist this and remain "untouched" by evil, no matter what is done to us. We need not be "victims" of evil.
And this is the beginning of "overcoming evil with good." We can prevent the evil from spreading from the hearts of others to our own hearts. And then we can begin to show others that evil can be quenched in their hearts as well. This is how Jesus responded to evil, and it is the best thing we can do for others, both for those who are "evil-doers" and those who suffer under them (and usually we are both).
In all this we also see Jesus showing us that violence or coercion (such as we see in our criminal "justice" system) has no value for us if we wish to respond to evil the way he did.
Facebook User
· 4 months ago
And this does not mean a complete avoidance of anything statist. While in Kuwait, we had several bomb and terrorist threats at the church. The church took up it's own defence in vigilance watch and prayer, but it did not reject the offer of the (Muslim) state to post guards outside the compound during the Christmas celebration. Similarly, we had to occasionally work with traffickers (on the one hand) and bureaucrats (on the other) whilst addressing human trafficking situations, but in neither case did it amount to support or reliance upon either. When the tsunami hit Southeast Asia in 2004 we coordinated a *lot* of aid, which was distributed amongst Tamil-controlled regions by deliberately circumventing some of the government strictures. This same type of circumvention was required for aid going into Myanmar in 2008.
Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw's book Jesus for President is remarkable in how many practical, down-to-earth, personal examples of living a third way they compile. I highly recommend it if only for this.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
I don't know about "complete avoidance," but as I said in the last sentence of the comment above, I don't see the value in what the state's law enforcement can offer us. At least not any value for the purposes of Jesus (which I'm assuming are our purposes as well).
I think it also should raise a question for us when the state wants to help us (especially with the sword). That wasn't Jesus' experience at all. The only detachment of soldiers he got to guard him was when they we're trying to keep him in the ground...
jasonv2
· 3 months ago
Have you read Andy Alexis-Baker's analysis of the police from an Anabaptist perspective? I think you would like his essays and find them helpful for your own thinking.
All Comments
I wonder as well, why he just says this about disputes between believers. Does that mean taking non-believers to court is ok?
I find it hard to see how we can take these words seriously and still call the police.
Last night we watched "Dead Man Walking" with the teenagers here at the farm. (Great movie, by the way.) And it seems pretty easy to see how executing someone, even someone who committed a terrible crime, is not the way of Jesus. Yet it's not as easy to see that non-lethal violence (or the threat of it), like the police often use, is also opposed to Jesus' way. And even if we would reject fighting for ourselves in that way ("turning the other cheek" instead), we often seem willing to call someone else in to do it for us.
The point you make is part of why I struggle with this question. I have heard about these stories as well, though in my limited experience I still don't know anyone for whom this has been true.
So how do we decide that is the right time to do this? It seems to me that this is a fine line to walk. Yes, at times it may be most loving to say to someone, "I know this isn't helping you, so you have to leave." Maybe even to say that you need to call the police (I'm less certain about that), but I'm pretty sure I, and our society, jump to that conclusion fairly quickly, without having any imagination (or the courage!) to consider and carry out other ways of action.
Furthermore, I would question whether results prove the Christ-like-ness of an action. I believe that God is able to work in people's lives even through things and people who aren't being completely faithful to him. I would wonder if these people look to the people who originally called the police as being a witness of Christ to them. They, and we, may want to deem them so after the fact because it makes us easier to justify and remain content within out system of justice, but it could just as easily be the case of God is working in spite of ourselves (or maybe comparable to Paul's speculation about using clay pots that are meant to be broken). I'm not sure its Christians' job to devise the most efficient way to fix a problem (and besides that I would be surprised if jail time proved the most efficient way, considering all the stories and research that doesn't show so many redeeming results), but it is Christian's job to live into God's kingdom and be Christ's ambassadors.
That last sentence was a loaded statement, so to state each thought separately... I would question whether that kind of anecdotal evidence is a good reasoning for supporting and using our justice system as a rule.
I'd also question whether someone's action leading to something good necessarily means that the action is Christ-like. It seems like Paul consistently allows for that not to be true (and we see that kind of ambiguous situation in both the new and old testament).
I'd want to keep in mind that we aren't saviors, but a group of people who live according to and point towards God's kingdom.
We should also recall how Jesus responded to Judas. Judas eventually hit bottom (though in that case it didn't lead to repentance), but Jesus did not try to forcibly stop him or even turn the other disciples against him. Practicing what he preached: "Do not resist one who is evil." (Mt 5.39)
The scripture you quoted affirms Christian desire to seek justice. It puts a limit on how that is to be done. Since both parties of the dispute are Christians, Paul commends that they seek justice through the Church. He expects both parties to submit to the decisions of the Church because of their commitment to Christ.
Worldly justice is enforced through threat (or actual) violence. If there were no attempt made at justice, this would be a very mean world indeed. We can see a small cosmos of what a world without limits would look like when we observe different parenting strategies. Families where boundaries are not enforced have very unruly children which grow up to be problems in society. The Apostle Paul talks about how as adults we are grateful for the discipline of our parents and how it makes us better persons. I don't know that we necessarily have to use violence to discipline our children, but our ability to enforce any disciple becomes less when our children become bigger and stronger than we are.
I feel that when we report crimes to the police, and pursue worldly justice we limit the damage evil can do. We protect the innocent from having to bear the wounds of someone else's sin. Forgiving is hard work. I don't want to have to forgive any more than is necessary. And I wouldn't want create a situation by my inaction where someone else had to do the hard work of forgiving.
And the "limit" God puts on our response is not "refrain from retaliation or violence yourself, but leave it to the criminal justice system," it is "leave it to the wrath of God" (and also the insight and wisdom of God, and the mercy of God).
I agree that justice is desired and limits on wrongdoing are needed, often physical (even violent) limits. But there is no danger of most people suddenly following Jesus' example and turning the other cheek, leaving the criminals to wreak havoc. There will always be a vast majority of people ready to strike back, fight for their property and their rights, and violently punish wrongdoers. And while I think that most of the time the reasons for this striking back are not selfless or righteous (or truly "for justice"), I believe God uses this unrighteous response to restrain evil and bring some justice. He turns selfish men against selfish men, violent men against violent men, and brings from it some good. This does not, however, make their purposes or their means good. Jesus shows us what doing good really means.
And it's his example we're supposed to follow, right?
Now shall I get a whip and drive out the money changers? bankers? stockbrokers? Oh, my!
Please, I hope you are not suggesting we forget everything but the gospels.
LIkewise, todays "wise men" church leaders are just as likely to consider a report of a sexual assault a "trivial" enough matter to handle competently but I believe there is a difference in what we know as "civil" cases where one man takes another to court, and "criminal" cases, where the state has to act to protect the community from on-going evil. We are not called to show grace towards behaviors in the church that even heathens would abhor. We are called to put that brother out of the church. Paul says.. . "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . .I decree that you geive such an individual over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the LOrd". See 1 Cor. 5:1-8.
We are to be careful to be Spirit-;ed even in showing grace appropriately for the salvation of souls at stake.
I would like to suggest that human justice is a form of grace. If our sins deserve death, then anything less is a form of mercy if not grace. We can show grace and still hold people accountable for their actions.
We are to pray for our flawed government system that these authorities will serve to keep the peace and help enforce our civil liberties.
But we should keep in mind that governmental authorities were the ones who crucified Jesus. And "submitting" to them is not the same as always obeying them, and definitely not the same as actively cooperating with them (as we do when we turn people over to the criminal justice system).
I wouldn't argue with praying the authorities make good decisions, but I'm not sure "peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness" translates to enforcement of anything. It seems to be praying something personal for them as individuals. Again though, I also agree with Paul that I think we should submit to authorities and pay them respect when it is due.
Everyone hiked over to the house where we knew a policeman lived. Our complaints were voiced and he explained the different options available. "I can go give them a warning, or you can take out a reckless driving warrant."
I left the conversation shortly after. The others must have come to some conclusion of their own.
Around the block I found two young men sitting on their stoop. I knew them to be the culprits.
"Did you guys see that car zipping through here?"
""No"
"Really? They were peeling out all over the place!"
-Blank stares.-
"Well, I was really concerned, because, you know, I've got two little kids, and a lot of people around here have dogs. I just don't want anyone to get hurt."
"Yeah."
"Some other residents were talking about taking out a warrant or something."
"Huh."
"Well, I'll see you later."
I guess I did better than some might, but I felt like there was still an opportunity missed. I mean, they were outside! They knew they were in the wrong, they just got carried away in their foolishness, and they were going out to face the world. Whether brazenly, with attitude, and festering resentment toward their neighbors, or under grace, apologetic, and redeemed. The power lay in my hands.
Lord, forgive them now. And forgive me for a missed opportunity.
But that isn't grace, and it doesn't allow much place for God to truly change their hearts, not just their actions.
I think your action was definitely better than it might have been. I think it probably takes time and experience to change our conditioned responses of 'law and order' into 'neither do i condemn you'.
Now I know this brings up the argument about the death penalty and I am not trying to stir that pot. But I do believe people that committ crimes like sexual assault and murder need to be stopped before others are hurt. I have interviewed victims of sexual assaults in depth in relation to my career field. Alot of the times they describe the assault as "something in them died."
However I do believe the bible speaks very clearly to Christians calling the "police" on Christians and I do not believe that should be done except in cases of murder other related heinous acts. The last thing that is needed is serial pedophiles, serial rapist, and serial murders loose because Christians refuse to call the police when they may hold the information needed to stop them.
We don't have a lot of clear examples from Jesus' life to follow concerning this, but there is the incident with the woman caught in adultery. Her life was in jeopardy. But Jesus did not intervene violently, or even physically (he did not physically "get in the way," as some groups suggest we do). He did do something, though. And he did end up stopping the violence, even though they thought they were compelled by the law to stone her.
Now that I think of it, there's also the example of Jesus' response when John the Baptist was in prison and sent word to Jesus ("Are you the one?"). And this might respond to your "must be stopped" argument. I suspect in this story that John was asking if Jesus was the one who would fulfill the prophetic promise that the savior would "proclaim freedom to prisoners" (Is 61, and Lk 4). John would probably care a lot about that right then. But Jesus does not storm the prison or even protest that John has been imprisoned unjustly. And John is executed. Why didn't Jesus stop it? (Was there really nothing he could do?) Is he also guilty of this blood?
To John (and to our questions), Jesus replies, "Blessed is he who takes no offense at me."
But there is a not too fine line between doing our best to promote peace, and actively fostering an environment which allows violence to thrive. Refusing to involve law enforcement on some kind of religious grounds is neither social justice nor an avoidance of being "of the world", it is merely becoming part of the problem that allows violence to prosper.
I disagree with Maria, G-d does not give us rulers. The Old Testament history of Israel makes it quite clear that G-d did not want Israel to have a king, warned them against asking for a king, and promised them that they would regret it if they insisted. Obviously, they did regret it.
But again, the police have nothing to do with rule. They are not an occupying power, they are not soldiers, nor are they vigil antes with stones seeking to enact Mosaic Law.
Yes, it is quite true that when Jesus was wrongly accused and framed, even to death, he did nothing to defend himself. Yes, it is quite true that Jesus did not spend his time rushing from court to court advocating social justice for everyone else who had been framed or unjustly accused. When Jesus said "the poor will be with you always" I believe part of what he was saying was to not make the mistake of turning our lives into an endless, exhausting quest to right every wrong to the expense of all joy or happiness we might experience (since he is only with us for a short time).
But to suggest that helping the police to curtail violence somehow falls outside our calling runs completely counter to the idea of building the kingdom. How can we build the kingdom while our heads are being smashed in?
Gandhi and MLKjr. used -shame- as a tactic to produce change and to reduce violence in the long term. They had to endure short term violence, even deaths, to produce that shame and to produce the change they desired. The Dali Lama has pointed out that similar tactics would be useless in attempting to free Tibet, because the PRC has no shame. They have wantonly slaughtered thousands, maybe millions, of Tibetans and do not care. They are actively displacing the entire population of the country to propagate the myth that Tibet is inherently Chinese. Tactics other than non-violence, active resistance are necessary to -prevent- ongoing, never ending violence.
Certain violent criminals have no shame. Jesus was able to prevent the stoning of the woman caught in adultery because he was able to shame the vigil antes into recognizing their hypocrisy. Pick any infamous criminal you like, a similar tactic could not have been used to prevent their crimes.
It isn't a question of justifying violence as a means to a peaceful end. It is simply a matter of recognizing that some peaceful actions create an environment in which violence thrives, and some not so peaceful actions create an environment in which violence has no place. Good policing can play a vital part in this.
Our job is to ensure policing is done -correctly- and that it does not become part of the problem, not to pretend it is unnecessary.
And: "How can we build the kingdom while our heads are being smashed in?" Great question. It is precisely the question that the cross puts to us.
The answer I see to that question (in light of the cross) is that we are not meant to build the kingdom at all. It is (and always has been) God's gift to us.
If we aren't meant to be building the kingdom, then I guess I won't bother with social justice anymore, apparently G-d's got that all taken care of. Which is good, since apparently I'm expected to be dead sooner rather than later.
I'm not saying the solution is a more just form or rule, that's futile. I'm saying that to equate the police with the military with a primary task to oppress rather than to protect renders the whole world into black and white, with only two groups: those who rule, and those who are oppressed. Under this image, even Bill Gates is part of the oppressed because he isn't part of the government or the military or the police. It is simply too stark of a model to give us any room to act out the hope to which we are called. In fact the implication has been made that we aren't called to hope, we're called to martyrdom. There is no justice in martyrdom. Only death. If that's what this is really about then I'm not interested.
I also don't understand how you think there is no justice in martyrdom. If our Justice - in the biblical (true) sense - comes from Christ, who continually pointed us to self-sacrifice and called us to follow him even to the cross, then is martyrdom not THE SOURCE of (real, unadulterated) Justice?
Actually, I think the good news that Jesus brought, that "the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Mt 12.28) is not bleak at all. To me, the idea that it is up to us to build the kingdom is much bleaker. I've seen what has been accomplished by our efforts and I'm not impressed. I've seen the social justice workers burning themselves out for minor gains (and then dropping the grass roots activism and going for the presidency instead--where he can really make some changes). That's not what Jesus announced for us, a lifelong struggle for piecemeal gains. He proclaimed that God is giving us the kingdom. Persecution, even death, is nothing in comparison to that. Isn't that the revelation of Easter?
Justice is not in our (weak, very fallible) hands. Justice is securely in God's hands.
So to me, that looks far more bleak than the idea that being reconciled to G-d and actually having an interest in making a difference (which I certainly wouldn't have otherwise) can be propagated to others. True, not nearly enough have actually done this and little has been accomplished, but wouldn't it be far -worse- otherwise?
We're a long way from where we started. I think it is one thing to understand that we aren't supposed to seek to preserve our own life and that we must be willing to suffer injustice even to destruction, but that it is another thing entirely to believe that we aren't supposed to make any attempt to preserve anyone else's, either. How can we show any meaningful solidarity with the oppressed if we make it clear we're going to do nothing to prevent their oppression? If all we offer them is a metaphoric hope of a just kingdom outside of this life? I just can't find a way to make that add up at all.
And the kingdom is not a metaphor. It was lived by Jesus and his disciples, and by many of his followers since then. Look at Jesus' life, it was visibly, concretely very different in choices and actions and experiences than the lives we are used to seeing.
If you do not experience the reality of this yourself, and you conclude that Jesus did not give us the kingdom to experience now, then that is your choice. But I will continue to say that Jesus offered us lives like his, and that is good news indeed.
And while it may be true that we are called to live -like- Jesus lived, we cannot. And so while it may be true that Jesus lived the kingdom, we cannot. We can strive towards it, but we cannot achieve it. This is what I mean by building. The work we put in towards the goal - a goal we cannot reach, because remain flawed in spite of our redemption. So if the only hope to living the kingdom, and thus share its justice with the oppressed, is to live -exactly- as Jesus did, then that is no hope at all.
I'm hard pressed to see any hope or good news for us, or for the oppressed in these ideas. So there must, then, be a piece I've over looked that is the clear path to preventing evil as well as overcoming our limited, humanity in order to live precisely as Jesus did.
But didn't Jesus say "follow me" and "the kingdom has come upon you"? Was he taunting us? What about "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do" (Jn 14.12)?
Jesus offered himself and his teaching as good news, as true hope for the oppressed. Shouldn't we believe, and do the same?
You are right that God was not in favor of Israel having a king, and their first king was a disaster. However, when I read the prophets I get a much different picture of God's attitude towards rulers. Rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar were instruments of God's justice, Darius and Cyrus were praised. Even when I read Chronicles I get the picture that it was the king's duty to lead the people to God. It sort of fits into Jesus parables of being a good shepherd; that the ordinary populace will go astray if they are not led by a good ruler, one with a rod and staff.
The extent to which earthly governing reflects or should reflect the kingdom of God and in what way is a debate that goes back to the church's beginnings. The reformation marked a significant turning point in people's ideas about who and how earthly power should be used to enforce/bring in the kingdom of God. I suspect it will continue to be debated until Jesus returns. Hopefully the debate will be like iron sharpening iron into a sword of truth that pierces to the heart.
I think your observations about the effectiveness of various non-violent methods is spot on. I think you also make a good observation about the distinction between police and military. But I'm not sure how we could have police without a governing body or rulers.
http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/christians-social-is...
Boyd argues the Samuel passage illustrates human governments are a result of people rejecting God's rule. In addition to several other points, he also argues (based on Romans 12-13) that God's "establishing" of governments can simply mean that He uses them as He finds them.
I don't think this can be answered easily, or generally for all situations. But some observations from Jesus' life may be helpful to us as we try to hear how God might be leading us in some particular situation. As Jim pointed out, Jesus did not seem compelled to prevent evil from happening. I think he certainly did much, in word and example, to try to convince people not to do evil and convert them to do good. But when they chose evil anyway, he did not physically (or with a legion of angels) step in to stop it. And his actions in this regard matched his teaching, "Do not resist one who is evil." (Mt 5.39)
This, I believe, points to a difference in how Jesus viewed the problem of evil. It seems that, to him, evil was not "bad things that happen to people." Those bad things that happen were rather symptoms of the evil that exists within people. The external violence or injustice points to the very real evil in us. Jesus expresses this in his interpretation of the Law in the sermon on the mount, especially clearly in his line, "I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The evil is in the intent, not just the external action.
We can see from this why Jesus would not choose physical (or otherwise coercive) means to stop evil. He wants to root evil out of hearts, and coercively "preventing" evil intentions from being carried out does not reduce the evil intent, but often actually increases it (hence, the "cycle of violence"). Jesus chooses means to respond that go to the heart of the matter, the root of evil. Such as courageously rebuking powerful oppressors, revealing to all the evil in their hearts, and drawing out their wrath (towards him, which he does not reciprocate) to make the hidden evil visible and obvious—obviously wrong. His innocent (and non-resistant) suffering and death at the hands of evil-intentioned men is the extreme example of this response. The desire is that people will recognize the evil within themselves, and repent, turn away from it.
This also presents the situation of the "victim" in a different light. If evil is truly "in your heart," in our intentions, then evil cannot be imposed on us forcefully from the outside. If evil is in us, it is in our own desires and choices, not in what is done to us. We cannot be made evil or corrupted by evil unless we choose to let it into our own hearts. Now, often when evil-intentioned acts are done to us, we do let evil into us, responding with vengeance or hatred. It is difficult not to do so. But Jesus' example (and his presence in us) shows us how we, like him, can resist this and remain "untouched" by evil, no matter what is done to us. We need not be "victims" of evil.
And this is the beginning of "overcoming evil with good." We can prevent the evil from spreading from the hearts of others to our own hearts. And then we can begin to show others that evil can be quenched in their hearts as well. This is how Jesus responded to evil, and it is the best thing we can do for others, both for those who are "evil-doers" and those who suffer under them (and usually we are both).
In all this we also see Jesus showing us that violence or coercion (such as we see in our criminal "justice" system) has no value for us if we wish to respond to evil the way he did.
Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw's book Jesus for President is remarkable in how many practical, down-to-earth, personal examples of living a third way they compile. I highly recommend it if only for this.
I think it also should raise a question for us when the state wants to help us (especially with the sword). That wasn't Jesus' experience at all. The only detachment of soldiers he got to guard him was when they we're trying to keep him in the ground...
http://www.jesusradicals.com/anarchism/police/