the Jesus Manifesto - Latest Comments in What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Shahzam — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:20:06 -0000

Ted, thank you for your heart warming response. I'm encouraged that you consider me a friend. I hope we get a chance to have a cup of coffee together one of these days.

As a way of introducing myself, I will be very honored if you look at my blog and if you get a chance, read the last two postings.
www.Shahshankedredemption.blogspot.com

Shah

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Ted — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:48:33 -0000

ShahZam,

Your response is both heartening and humbling. You're right that internet discussions tend toward the cerebral and abstract. It's a lot different than talking things out over a couple of beers or a cup of coffee.

Rest assured that I see our differences as simply that: a difference. In all likelihood, for 99% of life, in which we are not fending off would-be rapists or fighting genocide, our approach to the Way is probably not a lot different. I agree that we share a passion for justice, if we might disagree on the means of achieving it.

I would be pleased to consider you a friend and brother in Christ.

Ted

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Shahzam — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:11:05 -0000

Ted,

First of all, thank you again for your prompt response.

I very much dislike communicating via emails. Since it has no emotions or
facial expressions attached to it, it is very hard to read between the
lines.

I do apologies and am deeply sorry if I came across as one who was
questioning your courage or integrity. It takes much courage to have the
commitment and passion you have towards pacifism. I admire any man or woman
who has enough Christ in him/her that can turn the other cheek.
Unfortunately, I am not there and, short of any especial grace, I don't know
if I will ever be there. However, I am passionate for justice even if it
means having to use force.

I think we have gone far enough with this discussion. Perhaps our
experiences in life and the lens through which we look at the scripture will
not allow us to agree on this subject, but I hope you will consider me a
friend and a brother in Christ who, much like you, is trying to find what it
means to walk in the WAY.

ShahZam

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Ted — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:26:56 -0000

ShahZam,

The "bumper sticker slogan" is not mine, so perhaps it was rude of me to intrude on your conversation with someone else. If Nathan had commentary on the Iraq war in mind when he made the comment in question, I missed it, since I assumed he was speaking in more general terms. I'm not sure what your question is regarding this slogan. I addressed the intruder issue because you brought it up.

In Romans 13 (though interpretations vary widely) Paul seems to recognize the right of the state to bear the sword -- to use force, in other words. At the very least, he recognizes this (use of force by the state) as an aspect of life that will not go away. One of the better uses of this force on the part of the state is the protection of the innocent. I don't claim for myself the moral aptitude to discern, in all cases, what qualifies for this, nor would I assume that all such uses of force are equal. Armed conflict often results in the loss of civilian life and the destruction of non-military property, which I believe is called "collateral damage."

I will not take up arms for the state, no matter how noble the purpose might seem. This does not rule out helping the innocent by other means. As a kingdom of priests, we have a different calling and are held to a different standard than the world, until such time as the world is ready for the Kingdom to come in its fullness. If that makes me a coward or invalidates my ethical reasoning, you may feel free to paint me yellow and dismiss anything else I might have to say.

As for the rapist scenario, since the intruder is twice my size, I can use the baseball bat for extra reach to pin his arms to his torso and hang on for dear life while my wife escapes and calls the police. But that probably adds to or deletes from your scenario, which is designed as a trap: if the only way to stop the rapist is through violence, and I say I won't do that, I'm a coward. If I say that, in all likelihood, I'd try to hit a line drive on his face, I'm not really a pacifist and therefore we can reject it as an ethical stance. Since I thought I addressed this with my response to Sara above, I'll be blunt: this is crappy ethical reasoning and an unfair means of discourse.

But, since we seem unable to take the discourse to a different level, I'll concede with a hypothetical scenario of my own:

Let's say an evil seductress breaks into your home with armed thugs in tow. Despite your heroic efforts to slay them all, they effectively restrain you and your wife. The seductress offers you an ultimatum: have sex with her while your wife look on, or the thugs get your wife while you look on. There is no way out of this, no action-hero response that will guarantee a good outcome. You must choose.

Can I use your response to this scenario as a means of evaluating your sexual ethics? I can't. I wouldn't. It's unfair. No ethical position can answer ahead of time every possible scenario, and no ethical position should be rejected on the basis of hypothetical questions specifically designed to expose its fault lines.

Most of us, in certain circumstances, would probably lie. Nobody uses this to suggest that honesty is an unrealistic ethical standard. Most of us, in certain circumstances, would probably steal. Nobody uses this to suggest we abandon "do not steal" as an ethical standard. Nor would any of us suggest that we practice and prepare for stealing just in case we find ourselves in such a situation. Moreover, we don't seem to be concocting hypothetical scenarios to test the commitment of people who say that stealing is wrong. Somehow, however, we feel compelled to protect and cherish violence as a different category of ethical thinking.

Ted

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Shahzam — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:22:07 -0000

Dear Ted, thank you for taking the time to write such a long response to my
earlier email.

First, last week Obama said that he is embarrassed to see how many different
languages Europeans who come to the US speak and encouraged us all to learn
how to speak Spanish. My reference to his wish had to do with that comment.
By the way, as one who is fluently bilingual and can get by in several other
languages, after that great chastisement of the American people for being
monolingual, I was rather surprised to find out that the man can only speak
English.

Now that that is out of the way, please allow me to deal with your reply one
segment at a time.

Ted: Thank you for you passionate response. You do bring up an interesting
take on the "what has war solved" question, though I might point out that
only one of our number offered up this line of questioning and we might give
him the benefit of the doubt in the use of hyperbole.

ShahZam: Let's take it one step at the time. You answer my question about
this bumper sticker comment first and we then can move on to your next
points.

Ted:
It may be that armed intervention was the only way to stem the slaughter of
innocents, and that it is for just such a reason that the state bears the
sword. But war has not succeeded in ending violence (which is the standard
to which anti-pacifists sometimes hold pacifists) though the interplay of
warring factions might, in some cases, help to keep violence in check on the
global level.

ShahZam:
So there are times that armed intervention could be the right thing to do,
correct? You say "It may be..." Who decides when that MAY BE?? Would you
participate in it if it is decided that it MAY BE that time?

Ted:
I'm not sure anyone has suggested that governments themselves embrace
pacifism. This has been addressed elsewhere on the site. I'm also not sure
what "Obama's wishes" are or what that has to do with this conversation.

ShahZam:
You did with your bumper sticker slogan. Anyone reading that line knows you
are not talking about me getting into a fight with my neighbor, but you have
a much larger scope in mind--US being in Iraq.

Ted:
I appreciate being schooled on the appropriate response to an intruder.
I have to admit I missed the particular command of Jesus that would mandate
violent dispatch of rapists, and the scenario presumes a number of things
(the primacy of male agency among them, but I'll let that go): that there
was no other interventionary alternative, no means of assisting escape, no
way to block, restrain, distract, redirect, persuade, or appease the
attacker, and yet, somehow, in spite of this, a violent solution is not only
available but stands a solid chance of being successful without eliciting an
even more violent response from the hypothetical interloper

ShahZam:
I know you are being sarcastic and I do appreciate it, I really mean it ;-),
but I have no idea what you are talking about. What I gave you was just an
example. Please take it at the face value and don't add or delete anything
from it. What would you do if "restraining" as you call it, had to do with
you having to use a baseball bat since the intruder is twice your size?

Ted:
As for the micro vs. macro discussion, I admit I'm a bit confused. It would
seem from your argument that pacifism at the macro level is entertainable
only at the risk of entire people groups and the English language, and is
unconscionable at the micro level for fear that wives everywhere will be
ravaged in the night. There doesn't seem to a difference, so I'm not sure
where the mix-up is.

ShahZam:
To answer this you have to clear something for me. When you say:"What has
war solved?" What war are you talking about? You fighting an intruder or
Hitler gassing innocent Jews and retarded people?

Again, thank you for taking time to communicate with me.

ShahZam

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

markvans — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:35:19 -0000

Godwin's law is our bane here at JM. :)

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Ted — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:32:56 -0000

btw -- Jordan, I think we've fulfilled Godwin's law at this point.

The war example makes particularly clear, I think, the limits of the "what if?" approach to ethical reasoning. Any gains made by warfare come at the expense of human life, and we would be naive to assume that all involved gave their lives willingly. Neither assuming the responsibility to use force nor abnegating the right to use force answers the question with any kind of certitude or pristine clarity.

One could easily conjure hypothetical situations in which what appears to be a legitimate use of force turns out to have tragic unintended consequences, and I would submit that such scenarios are, in small measure, more realistic than scenarios in which violence is magically the only available and "effective" response over and against fetal-position thumb-sucking while the weak and innocent are molested by the strong. In some ways, all such arguments break down into the "brakeman's dilemma" (a classic ethical exercise in which one must choose between two paths for a runaway train, each resulting in loss of life) -- or a variant of "lifeboat".

Advocacy of a judicious and measured use of force is a viable and defensible position, if one cared to make the argument without reaching for tired hypothetical constructs. The pacifist (just like anyone else) must extrapolate a coherent ethical stand from biblical principles that are sometimes ambiguous. The political and cultural context of Jesus' teachings do not immediately commend themselves to ethical specifics in our own time, so such specifics must be derived -- such derivation, along with the interpretive task to begin with, being subject to the limits of human reasoning. Moreover, the pacifist can only defer for so long an admission that, at some point, pacifism leaves things to God that other perspectives leave open to human response. None of these things have been a deal-breaker for me -- but I recognize their legitimacy.

Having said that, however, neither the advocacy of the measured use of force nor the refusal to use force, should be evaluated on the basis of their inability to answer questions raised by no-win scenarios.

We need different questions.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Sara — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:15:15 -0000

The U.S.'s response to the Jewish holocaust was no less a holocaust, in my opinion. Bombing whole cities, including a Catholic convent in Nagasaki, how can that be justified? They guy who flew the Enola Gay and dropped the atomic bomb was a professing Catholic too, apparently he had higher allegiances.

I don't want to pretend to have an answer to the question of what would have happened if the US had not intervened. To even try to figure it out would be to imagine myself in a position of power I don't wish to have. We are not called to take up the reins of history and try to direct its course. Most of the time things don't happen the way we intend for them to anyway.

But I think if I have to hear that somehow I am supposed to be grateful that I grew up speaking English one more time I'm going to crack! Is it not possible to be a faithful Christian and speak another language and live under a different form of government? And if it is possible, what else matters?

I also do not accept the necessity of believing that the quality of life I enjoy is the direct result of warfare. I believe prosperity happens when God chooses to bless the righteous, though the wicked reap the benefits as well, and just think that it is through their own works of violence that they live in security. They also try and force this lie on everyone else so that they can receive justification for their evil works. But I utterly reject that. The reason my children have a roof over their heads and enough food is because my husband is obedient to his calling to provide for us, but even his ability to do so is God's provision, the blessing of a Father who knows how to give good gifts to his children. And I think the only reason this present fascist government hasn't policed us all into full blown Nazi-ism is because of God's restraint on the hearts of the criminals in Washington. Same goes for the criminals on the street as to why we are not all being raped and pillaged, though I suspect that a good many wouldn't be in such a desperate state if they weren't being trampled down by the status quo.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Ted — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:04:09 -0000

Shahzam,

Thank you for you passionate response. You do bring up an interesting take on the "what has war solved" question, though I might point out that only one of our number offered up this line of questioning and we might give him the benefit of the doubt in the use of hyperbole. It may be that armed intervention was the only way to stem the slaughter of innocents, and that it is for just such a reason that the state bears the sword. But war has not succeeded in ending violence (which is the standard to which anti-pacifists sometimes hold pacifists) though the interplay of warring factions might, in some cases, help to keep violence in check on the global level.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that governments themselves embrace pacifism. This has been addressed elsewhere on the site. I'm also not sure what "Obama's wishes" are or what that has to do with this conversation.

I appreciate being schooled on the appropriate response to an intruder. I have to admit I missed the particular command of Jesus that would mandate violent dispatch of rapists, and the scenario presumes a number of things (the primacy of male agency among them, but I'll let that go): that there was no other interventionary alternative, no means of assisting escape, no way to block, restrain, distract, redirect, persuade, or appease the attacker, and yet, somehow, in spite of this, a violent solution is not only available but stands a solid chance of being successful without eliciting an even more violent response from the hypothetical interloper.

As for the micro vs. macro discussion, I admit I'm a bit confused. It would seem from your argument that pacifism at the macro level is entertainable only at the risk of entire people groups and the English language, and is unconscionable at the micro level for fear that wives everywhere will be ravaged in the night. There doesn't seem to a difference, so I'm not sure where the mix-up is.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Shahzam — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:15:56 -0000

What has war ever solved? I don't know, you might want to talk to the Jews who were in the Hitler's concentration camps. I am so glad that our government did not believe in pacifism during WWII, otherwise, there would have been no Jews left in this world and, fulfilling Obama's wishes, you would be speaking a second language, German or Japanese.

Like many Christians you have gotten your macro and micro mixed up. Let me tell you what I mean. If someone breaks into your house and begin to rape your wife, would you stand aside and tell him, "Since I am a Christian pacifist, I will not only not protect my wife, to be true to Christ's commandment, I am going to turn the other cheek and offer you my daughter too?" I really hope you are a better husband and a father than that since it is your duty to protect your family, or is it? Christ commandment is to you and me as individuals (micro) and not to a whole nation (macro). Let's first deal with the micro and then we can hope for the macro.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

joel — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:08:51 -0000

Thank you. I found your reply to be very helpful in understanding my role as an ambassador of Christ.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Ted — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:00:46 -0000

I am torn, because it seems rude not to reply at all, but I don't want to act like I must have the last word.

Let's just say that despite a spate of similarities (without which we would probably not be part of the same conversation), we have very different worldviews. I'm not sure the harmony-through-careful-violence project is working out so well, on the human or non-human level. But I could be wrong.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Sara — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:52:00 -0000

I find that annoying tenor in Handel's Messiah singing in my head, "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished!" Originally from Isaiah, I think...

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Maria Kirby — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:49:40 -0000

Ted,
The lens I am using is primarily that of the Church being the body of Christ. When exploring that analogy (and I know that all analogies have their limits), I find it very interesting the way the body stays healthy. Our immune system not only attacks invaders, but cleans up and gets rid of the body's own sick or rouge cells. On top of that there seems to some sort of system in the body which communicates to particular cells that they are no longer needed, and the cells commit suicide. I'm not advocating suicide, but I do find the body's defenses very interesting and suggestive.

In addition, as wonderful as the natural world is, it seems as though humans can play a big role in keeping ecosystems in balance. Humans can understand when and how much to cull the populations of predators and prey such that their populations don't experience extreme swings and become susceptible to extinction through disease. It is to our shame that we are the cause of so many extinctions, when our role is that of protecting species.

If we can bring harmony to the natural world through careful violence, would human society be any different?

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

littlefights — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:52:54 -0000

(It wouldn't let me reply below your post.)

Since the time of Christ there have been victories in war which have brought
glory to God.

Maybe, but each of those victories, particularly the victory & conversion of Constantine, have lead to other circumstances which were not particularly glorifying to God. For instance, if the Roman empire had not formally adopted Christianity, then the entire political landscape of Europe would have been different. No Crusades, no Inquisition, no Great Schism. I don't know whether we can truly say whether such things were glorifying to God this side of heaven.

And it only takes one exception to invalidate an unequivocal stand.

It only takes one exception to invalidate a philosophically based unequivocal stand, I'll agree. However, there is no exception to a Christological and eschatological stand because they speak to the entirety of the human condition and not specific situations.

Aside from that, you are exactly the type of non-pacifist I would like to see in government. :)

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

TomDuregger — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:00:18 -0000

Wes,
In your Atlanta example i would ask. What would stop you from attempting to stop this from happening using non-lethal intervention. Such as grabbing up the child and running with her, or grabbing her up -falling to the ground with the child in your arms, or drawing attention to what is happening by shouting at the top of your voice, DO NOT KIDNAP THAT CHILD, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT GOD IS WATCHING AND WILL NOT LET YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS FOREVER! or by taking down the liscence # of the abductors vehicle, or following the kidnapper to where they are taking her and reporting this location to the police. or by placing your body in the way of their progress. There is no limit to the amount of laying down our own lives (bodies, comfort zone, etc.) for the sake of others.

We have been pretty much programed to prefer contemplating the use of lethal force as a first response. It is viewed as being a much safer approach to most threats... and yes, why risk my person for the sake of a crime committing stranger?

"Jesus did" and "Jesus said to" is the only viable response to this question.

I do not think that the term "Pacifism" really describes what we are called to in all of this. Better terms may be "Active Messianic Love" and/or "Living as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven".

It has helped me in my pilgrimage from being an angry, violent man to becoming an ambassador of Christ in this area to really examine the idea of "Ambassadorship" in all of this.

It has helped to ask myself these questions: Does an ambassador get involved in the politics (vote, lobby, campaign, etc.), policing (the majestry or governance), and military of the country that he is an ambassador to? No, No and No. Is the role of an Ambassador to become involved in the affairs of his host country? -No. An ambassador is a communicator who communicates to his host country, what his own country is like. What does the term Ambassador mean? the dictionary says "1. A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government to another." So, we have the opportunity to represent the Kingdom of Heaven to the kingdom of this world wherein we reside.

Martyrdom occurs when a kingdom of this world wearies of hearing about the Kingdom of Heaven and simply sends the faithful ambassador home to his own King. We are faithful ambassadors when we declare the "norms" of our Heavenly Kingdom in contrast with the ways of the kingdoms of this world. This can hardly be considered a pacifistic endeavor. If we did this whenever we got the opportunity we would soon wear out our welcome amongst those who are choosing to perish.

One important point that a good ambassador, from the absolutly most powerful and coming Kingdom, would be to warn every person to take the opportunity to pre-surrender and live, as the coming Kingdom will not countenance rebellion and only consist of those who approve of the coming King and His ways.

I said all of this to say that living in the way of "Active Messianic Love" or "Living as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven" is a demonstration of confidence in the promises of our God, the blessings and curses of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Messiah Yahushuah. A particular and only true God with a particular view of the past, present, and future Whose Kingship and Kingdom will have no end. Is there not a cause? Is there no reason for having and showing great confidence in the LORD? Live boldly in the Messiah and give place for the vengence of the LORD, watching and warning with all dilligence.

I must confess that it took 31 years since first following Jesus at age 16 in 1971, until 2002, with much contemplation and resistance to embracewhat was really the self evident truth of the gospel that I suspected was true at the first (if I had only been able to read and simply embrace the truth back then, but, I was too American, I suppose, and had a hard time realizing that Jesus is now a king and that His Kingdom is now and real, and my citizenship in His Kingdom is now as well). I had opportunity to fellowship with a small Mennonite fellowship in California in 1976-7, which I passed up, (a group who taught a 'Natural Family Planning" class that my betrothed (31st annivversary last January) and I attended together), where I grew up, but thought their aversion to military service and war was too strange for me. I never directly brought up the topic with them, I guess that I really did not want to look at it head on. Little did I know then, that that group was the most radical and right on bunch of believers who really studied and applied the Scripture to their lives in a simple and most profound way.

I hope that my rambling has been beneficial.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Ted — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:15:56 -0000

Well, cold it is then. :)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Maria Kirby — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:02:49 -0000

Verbal violence -I was think more of 'white washed seplecures' and the 'brood of vipers'. It could be argued that the Jewish rulers were only exacting justice and trying to maintain peace in a very difficult circumstances. Exchanging physical violence for verbal violence. Defending their pre-ordained authority from an usurper who did not choose to take his greivences through the proper channels.

Fig tree - I am having a hard time stretching my imagination around the similarities between causing a tree to die and carrying a sign that expresses one's opinions. The later causes no harm to anyone or anything. And Jesus certainly did express his opinions to lots of people, why would he have needed to kill a tree?

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts in future posts. And I agree that it's better to look at Jesus than the lines. In my struggles with all of this sometimes I wonder if violence or at least death isn't more merciful at times.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Maria Kirby — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:37:30 -0000

Since the time of Christ there have been victories in war which have brought glory to God. The conversion of Constantine being one example, another is a king in Africa who converted to Christianity and had to fight against terrible odds to keep his kingdom and the doors open to Christianity. (Unfortunately I can't remember names on this one, but I believe the king adopted the name Henry after the Portuguese king Henry who had sent the monks or priests.)

I agree that very few wars have been just. I even question the value of defending one's country. However, I have a very active imagination and can conceive of situations that might constitute an exception. And it only takes one exception to invalidate an unequivocal stand. I would rather err on the side of saying there might be exceptions, but let's try and find if there is a non-violent solution to our problem. When we've truly explored all the other options, then I'm willing to say that a particular situation is an exception. But I think most people give up too soon. Trying to find non-violent solutions is a lot of work. And works best if can be planned ahead of time.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Maria Kirby — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:11:36 -0000

Ted,

I'm afraid you are cold.

With regards to human origins/human society my view on pacifism is that is a becoming process both individually and societally. At this point in history I feel that complete pacifism is not possible for a good majority of Christians, let alone non-Christians. But that is not to say that we shouldn't strive to find non-violent solutions to our problems. The more we seek, the more we will find. However, when push comes to shove, I think God gives grace for the not-there-yet. That he tolerates immature ways because he has other things for us to work on. I worry about the lack of 'no exceptions' in the philosophy of pacifists because I think it puts too much of a guilt burden on those who are not mature enough to manage difficult circumstances in a non-violent way.

In my experience as a parent I found that if I wanted my children to behave kindly towards each other, I needed to manage the circumstances and stresses. It is difficult not to be irritating when you are tired and hungry. It is hard not to lash out at someone weaker on you, if you have been picked on. It might be relatively easy for someone who has been brought up in a safe, secure, and loving environment to be able to handle occasional difficult circumstances. But there are a lot of people in this world who have been traumatized, abused, and/or neglected. I imagine it takes them a lot more work not to react to things that trigger their deepest fears and wounds.

I see the 'no exceptions' philosophy particularly troublesome with respect to government. I want to see good Christian people in government. I would prefer if those Christians in government were seeking to be peacemakers. But I would hope that their convictions would not hinder them from using violence IF and only IF that violence would prevent greater harm from occurring within the society at large. Wars generally do not qualify.

As peacemakers I think the responsibility is to try and change the circumstances that lead to conflict and war. My guess is that most of JM's readers are actually doing that and I want to applaud all of you for your efforts. Until circumstances are changed, I'm not sure of the value of being reactive to conflict. It seems to me as that just takes energy away from dealing with the conflict's source.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

littlefights — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:01:34 -0000

"If we concede the necessity of violence, but then try to limit its practice to only those situations where it truly was a necessity, we might find that we achieved peace sooner, than a more austere unequivocal stand. I believe it is possible to concede the possible necessity of violence from an a priori commitment to peace."

What you're describing is the Just War Doctrine, which is intended to limit the use of war/violence to only those situations where its intent and its execution are just. But it doesn't work and never has. Its been used for centuries to make all kinds of military actions licit, but it hasn't ever once prevented a war. Do we really believe that every war every "Christian" nation has ever fought has been just? And yet all were presented as just wars.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Ted — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:49:26 -0000

Okay, so some of what I wrote this morning (above) was obtuse, and sounds grumpy. What I meant is that we seem to be spinning wheels, or at least I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again. At that point it becomes more interesting to me to explore the nature of our differing lenses rather than keep spinning.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

randymolson — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:34:11 -0000

Very close to the conversation : http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/06/02/sticki...

I still have heard no answers on either side that I can throw myself 100% behind, except I like being called "Crazy Uncle Randy". Look forward to more of the discussion.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

joel — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:41:05 -0000

When I originally read the news story I mentioned above, I began to ask myself a lot of questions. I strive to be a peaceful person and promote peace in the world around me, but I also feel that any person, given the right circumstances, could be incited to violence. I will continue to hope and pray that the Holy Spirit would intervene for me if I were ever placed in such a situation like that and lead me to a peaceful resolution to the conflict. But if my voilent human nature should take over and cause me to do something I wouldn't otherwise do, at least I still have grace. Praise God for that.

Re: What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

hewhocutsdown — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:54:51 -0000

I brought up this discussion at the office, and my colleague (former special forces). We had all recently watched The Dark Knight in theatres, and the concept of difficult dilemmas bringing out one's dark side struck a nerve.

He recounted some soldiers he knew who had just snapped, but also that almost every self-professed pacifist he knew was merely one murder, rape or traumatic situation away from giving up their cherished beliefs.

But that gives me all the more respective for the few people who have been through war, as a victim or antagonist, and come out of it as a pacifist, for these people know the cost, and choose it anyway.

I suspect for most though, my colleague is correct, and that the word is quick on the tongue but not inculcated in the heart.