The American Spectator : Religiously Battling for Pacifism

Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

Religiously Battling for Pacifism

By Mark Tooley on 12.13.10 @ 6:07AM

Must all Christians be pacifists? Increasingly among Protestant and Evangelical elites the answer is yes.

Must all Christians be pacifists? Nearly all churches, excepting Anabaptists and Quakers, have traditionally taught that Christians may serve in the military or law enforcement of a legitimate government. But a rising tide of absolutist pacifism at least among U.S. Protestant and Evangelical elites is evangelizing for the Anabaptist message.

The latest voice is distinguished evangelical New Testament scholar Ben Witherington, a frequent television commentator on biblical topics who commendably and thoughtfully has disputed the Jesus Seminar, the Da Vinci Code and other nonsense. Many religious pacifists of late, including prominent Evangelical Left activist Jim Wallis, are vague about their pacifism, speaking against war, while touting more benign “police” actions, as though they were non-violent. Witherington, in a recent exchange, more consistently suggests Christians must avoid serving in both military and police.

In that exchange with a fellow theologian, Witherington declared he did not think “Christians should either serve in the military or as police.” And he wondered whether Christians could even serve as military chaplains or medics. Witherington insisted: “In short, for the Christian, there are plenty of things worth dying for and giving your life for, but nothing worth killing for, for life is of sacred worth, and we are called to save it, even from itself.”

Witherington’s interlocutor, Old Testament scholar Lawson Stone, responded: “My own reading of the Bible leads me to think humans have an obligation with fear and trembling, to use the power to take life or deprive persons of their liberty or property in the maintenance of that just society,” to include Christians serving as soldiers and police. Stoned added: “If one believes in government provided health-care and basic income guarantees, one believes in coercion. Violence and war are just the most conspicuous forms of coercion.”

This latter point is widely ignored by many contemporary Christian pacifists, legions of whom avidly support an ever wider and more coercive welfare and regulatory state. For them, Caesar’s sword may seize the health care system, levy confiscatory taxes, minutely regulate personal habits, and impose various visions of multiculturalism, with enthusiastic cheerleading from Christians. But Caesar must be condemned, or at least denied cooperation, for any forceful coercion of terrorists or other violent malefactors.

THE CURRENT RELIGIOUS FAD for pacifism is not unique in modern history. Pacifism nearly captured all America’s Mainline Protestant churches after World War I, owing both to revulsion over that war but also due to ascendant, utopian modernist theology. Reinhold Niebuhr famously developed Christian Realism in the 1930s to help liberal Protestants justify war without relying on traditional Christian Just War teaching.

Even in the middle of World War II, America’s then largest Protestant denomination, Methodism, by a narrow vote at its 1944 governing convention, was able to surmount its previous official anti-war stance, ratified in 1940, even after Nazi Germany had ravaged Poland. “We repudiate the theory that a state, even though imperfect in itself, must not fight against intolerable wrongs,” the Methodists decreed with D-Day only weeks away. “We are well within the Christian position when we assert the necessity of the use of military forces to resist an aggression which would overthrow every right which is held sacred by civilized men.”

By the 1960s, liberal Protestants like the Methodists again relapsed into utopian pacifism, angry over Vietnam, and impatient with Niebuhr’s framework, though Niebuhr himself opposed Vietnam. By the 1970s, radicalized Protestants were vacationing from their pacifism to support Marxist Third World revolution and essentially opposed violence only if waged by the U.S. or its allies. Mainline Protestant agencies, in decline since the early 1960s, have opposed U.S. military spending and all U.S. military actions since Vietnam. By 911, few Mainline Protestant elites were able to articulate, much less affirm, either traditional Just War teaching or Niebuhrian realism. The United Methodists, by a quirk of fate, had in fact amended their anti-war stance by agreeing at their 2000 governing convention that force can be justified against tyranny, aggression and genocide. But even after 9-11, church elites ignored the official stance to advocate dialogue and self-examination.

America’s Mainline Protestants have been displaced in influence by evangelicals. Unease by many young evangelicals with the length of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has almost certainly fueled widening support for pacifism. But the old Social Gospel pacifism of the last century has been displaced by Anabaptist notions of at least superficial separatism and ambivalence about the state. Old Evangelical Left fixtures, like Jim Wallis, still motivated by 1960s era anti-war activism, and relentless fans of Big Government, have ironically embraced some Anabaptist themes in their wider campaigns against American force. More traditional Evangelicals and Protestants, sometimes unsure of their own tradition, are too often absent from the debate.

Insisting that Christians shun not only the military but also law enforcement, as Witherington suggested, is more faithful to historic Anabaptist separatist beliefs and more morally consistent than what Evangelical Leftists like Wallis usually assert. But removing Christians from government hardly bodes well for a nation increasingly spiritually adrift. And debating pacifism during America’s next major crisis, as many Mainline Protestant elites were during even World War II, hardly seems wise. Lawson Stone’s exchange with Witherington hopefully will help motivate other evangelicals to burnish their intellectual and spiritual weapons for an important debate that may help determine America’s capacity for survival.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (138) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Herb| 12.13.10 @ 7:23AM

I hope Mr. Witherington practices what he preaches. I propose that he adorn the front door of his residence thusly:

"Proud Suppporter of Gun Control!"
(circle slash over handgun emblem)
"Guns Cause Violence!"
"This is a Gun Free Home!"

After all, if one is an absolute pacifist, one must be consistent, n'est-ce pas?

Paul D| 12.13.10 @ 10:39AM

Its Sheep vs. the Sheepdogs all over again.

stephanie| 12.13.10 @ 5:30PM

I wonder if the Rev. is a pro abortion Rev.

Smith| 12.14.10 @ 3:15PM

He's not pro-abortion. Ben Witherington is legit. I disagree with him about pacifism, but there are few pastors or scholars today who have done more to defend the historicity of Christian claims about Jesus or, for that matter, the Gospel.

Anthony| 12.13.10 @ 1:09PM

I'd settle for Mr. Witherington becoming a human shield.
Oh, and take along a few lefty friends while your at it Ben, it will be a twofer; practicing pacifism as well as reducing carbon footprints.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.10 @ 7:40AM

Mark,
Thank you for the refresher course.

As I have observed before,Christ demonstrated no ill will toward the Roman Centurion, and healed his baby...

You noted:.
""But removing Christians from government hardly bodes well for a nation increasingly spiritually adrift. And debating pacifism during America's next major crisis, as many Mainline Protestant elites were during even World War II, hardly seems wise......""

The crises, (yes, plural), America is headed into are going to require some fighting. We Christians are going to have to gird up our loins and prepare for the battles to come. I have recently published a fictional account of variations on that theme.
www.texassaidno.com will provide you with the foreword and chapter one. If you will email me at
sales@texassaidno.com I will send you a review copy.
The unspoken sub-title of the book is ...Texas said NO! to Sharia Law.

BackToBasics| 12.13.10 @ 7:34PM

This centurian and the others including the one who gave money to build a synagogue came into my mind immediately.
Also Eph 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."

Does this not argue for sacrifice not only for love and for labor but also even giving of your life to protect your wife. This guy and others like him are just another man-from-Glad look-alike with Jimmy Carter's sickening message of so-called Christian love which is as mushy as mud from a swamp and stinks just as bad too.

This kind of swill will no doubt come to the surface in an increasing way in order to blunt any edge and contribution the Christian evangelicals may have had in the last election.

.....And I say it again, don't buy into the amnesty-lite, Bush III whose name is Huckabee in the primaries.

martin j smith| 12.13.10 @ 8:13AM

As a non -Christian I can only comment thusly: This sounds like the Left religion orientation. The problem is the utter lack of of understanding of history --or is it ? Is this an ideological ( Socialist element ) of disdain for the military and law enforcement et al. ? I have seen too often the so called peace symbol ( which looks more like a large bomber to me ) on everyday things like caps,handbags,dresses,jeans etc. I think it is necessary to educated the uneducated of the dangers that pacifism brings. And, that very often so called pacifists become violent even in their call for non-violence. I saw this during the so called peace meovement of the 1960's ( Anti-Vietnam War etc. )

MoeBlotz| 12.13.10 @ 8:19AM

The symbol you refer to became known as the footprint of the American chicken when I was a lad.

Patrick| 12.13.10 @ 5:28PM

Alright, most people like to live in a state of peace, just like nobody likes garbage and pollution in their homes. As such, it is a useful slogan for useful idiots to be lead on as cat's paws.

As such, it is to be treated as a means to the ends of class warfare. Nothing more.

MoeBlotz| 12.13.10 @ 8:17AM

Had all those Protestants who fled the tyranny in the old country not fought to free us from the crown at the dawn of the 18th century,would the current monarchy be obliged to fight the threat of Sharia? Probably we would be speaking German and not communicating our free thoughts on an electronic device. Onward,Christian soldiers.........

Ryan| 12.13.10 @ 8:23AM

I have but one thing to say - if pacifism was right, then the Nazis get to win.

Anthony| 12.13.10 @ 1:01PM

Ryan, you are correct, which is why the pacifist theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, came to the same conclusion when the world was faced with the existential threat of the Nazis.
I guess we could say today's leftist Protestants aren't your granddaddy's Protestants.
They have the same death wish as their fellow secularist leftys.
Isn't there a planet these people can inhabit and leave us the hell alone?

Patrick| 12.13.10 @ 5:30PM

Well, they don't think its suicidal. They, like Trotsky before them, thought that by joining, they would enjoy the fruits of becoming the new ruling class. Sometimes people just don't learn.

Donna| 12.13.10 @ 8:33AM

I think you are out of touch Mr. Toomey. My Pastor (Catholic) just gave the opposite sermon Sunday that we have been too passive for too long and we need to stand up for what we believe in, our religion and our rights as well as those of the unborn. I don’t think you’re going to get the Methodist back with your article-at least not the ones you can count on for lifelong support. Once your ideas are proven reckless and out of touch, they’ll leave like they came but will have consumed all your resources in the process.

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 8:53AM

But you have to abolish Selective Service someday.
Mark Tooley should volunteer- he can take bullets meant for others.

Old Soldier| 12.13.10 @ 9:02AM

I was always content to obey John the Baptist's instructions in Luke 3:14.

bluecollarbytes| 12.13.10 @ 9:08AM

This 'Evangelism' is foreign to me, although I've been aware it existed. My 'protestant upbringing', through numerous churches in numerous States, never once hinted at peace for peace sake, the priority of 'world stability', contempt of those who protect us here and overseas, and most certainly Not putting mere human beings up on pedestals- as though they are anything but sinners.

True spirituality is being replaced with simple dirty human politics disguised as religious enlightenment.

Patrick| 12.13.10 @ 5:37PM

There certainly are reasons to fight, and good ones too.

Even so, we must be mindful that while we are sinners, we are also made in the image and likeness of God, knitted together within the womb by God's own will, as are those we may war against. It is best that war not be taken lightly.

Again, sometimes you have to fight...

Alan Brooks| 12.14.10 @ 12:25AM

Only in all-volunteer Services.
UNLESS you can build a time machine to travel back to the '50s. Then we had Ike for eight years- not eight years of Nixon-Ford; or 12 years of Bushes.
Once America was more respected, and take a guess why such was the case way back when..

Patrick| 12.14.10 @ 12:37AM

Alan...I've noticed that you've been posting more off topic than usual...

...Is everything alright with you?

bill carson| 12.13.10 @ 9:29AM

Hasn't this writer figured out that many pagan Leftists associate themselves with various Christian churches in order in order to magnify their anti-U.S. message? Don't be a fool and think for one moment that most of these "pacifists" are speaking honestly.

Motown Mike| 12.13.10 @ 9:53AM

I'm an evangelical Christian but Jim Wallis has no credibility with me, having accepted funding from George Soros.
The old Anabaptist position was that Christians should not be involved in government on any level, given its ultimate means of armed enforcement. However, in the letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul calls rulers God's ministers for good, bearing the sword to enforce good and avenge evil. Our problem is that rulers are increasingly becoming ministers for their own, not the common, good.
War reflects man's fallen nature and is not God's idea of good -- thus he told David he could not build the temple because he was a warrior, a man of blood. Yet David was the man after God's own heart and is one of the greatest saints of the Bible. John the Baptist told soldiers to "do violence to no man," yet said they should be content with their wages. In context, the violence must mean that soldiers were not to take part in the rape, theft, and pillage that were part of the spoils of war; had he wanted the soldiers to become pacifists, John would not have told them how to conduct themselves on an ongoing basis as soldiers -- being content with their wages.

Len| 12.13.10 @ 9:56AM

Jesus commanded his disciples to preach the gospel and heal the sick , take care of the poor, etc., not to involve themselves in the fights of this world.

God the Father says "not by might, nor by strength, but by my spirit"

Paul the apostle said that the weapons of our warfare ARE NOT CARNAL, but mighty to the pulling down of strongholds. The fight is not earthly, but spiritual and those who claim the name of Christ to support the use of force other than in clear defense show they reject Christ.

Further when the Messiah was here on earth many in that day were expecting him to be their savior by liberating them from Roman oppression, but when He preached taking up the cross and dying to self, most deserted him, and that is still true today, many want an easy out, but reject fasting and praying, weeping and intercession for people's souls and justice throughout the land. Those whose eyes are truly on the kingdom of heaven know that they will be persecuted and that the kingdoms of this world are in opposition to God and can be nothing but.

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 7:54PM

Len,

You say here, "except in clear defense." Yet in your posts below you are contradicting yourself all over the place, and are arguing against war and self defense all together. Not to mention calling others enemies of God for standing with those who choose to fight for our country.

Crusader| 12.13.10 @ 9:59AM

"Onward Christian Soldiers leading us to war/with the Cross of Jesus guiding us afore.
Christ the royal master lead against the foe....

KyMouse| 12.13.10 @ 10:59AM

Members of my family who still go to churches in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) noticed years ago that "Onward, Christian Soldiers" stopped being chosen for singing in worship services. It might not even be in the current hymnal.

During the summer, however, one of my relatives' churches lets the congregation call out hymns they want to sing -- and someone always requests that one. Most of the congregants sing it enthusiastically.

Either PCUSA leaders don't realize that the hymn is talking about warfare of the spiritual kind, or they just don't care.

Occam's Tool| 12.13.10 @ 11:36AM

The PCUSA is the worst church in America of the mainline denominations. It is a church that Clint/Tim* could go to.

Old Soldier| 12.13.10 @ 2:07PM

My Presbyterian Church sang it a few weeks ago after naming all the Vets in the Congregation.

hunter| 12.13.10 @ 12:01PM

Crusader, you beat me to it. The very same response was turning with music in my head as I finnsihed reading the article. Then I saw your response. Way to go!

martin j smith| 12.13.10 @ 10:06AM

What strikes me comical in a non comical way is the notion of those who claim to be pacifists yet they directly or indrectly "support" the killing of our troops. That I find the almost height of khutpahism-I leave room for greater heights. These people virtually want our side to be killed and thus lose--that is pacifism ? Sorry no sale!!
But worse. It is THEIR respo0nsibility to prove that they are right-and I do not see one peice of evidence presented except to call those who disagree war mongers. Finally, just because someone says something, if there is no real evidence does not make it true. And, those who oppose pacificm do not necessarily advocate for war. Preparedness is not war it is preparedness and no more. Those who oppose that are going to kill us and that I vehemently oppose !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IzeHavitt| 12.14.10 @ 1:58AM

The Scripture states: "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore, get wisdom, get understanding, with all your getting..." In the first place, can God get the message any plainer than that??? It is also written: "....all the paths of wisdom are peace." When was the last time this counterfeit of a preacher preached this? One of the aspects about the getting of wisdom is recognizing that, sometimes one must do some things that he, or she, would rather not do; but have become necessary, if one would "live a life quietly and peaceably, in all godliness and honesty". And why do certain things become necessary, such as war? It is because the seed of the devil- yea, the "rulers of the darkness of this world" continues to plague the earth with it's evils until they become intolerable and an effectual response has to be developed. It's that same seed that starts all the wars, in one fashion or the other. If this so-called preacher can't- or won't- recognize this obvious lesson of biblical history, then his congregation should remove him from the pulpit.

Tim*| 12.13.10 @ 5:03PM

I'm A Catholic, Jew Bigot Tool Job.

Nick| 12.13.10 @ 7:24PM

You are no Catholic, Tim*. You are a CINO.
Catholic
In
Name
Only.

Tim*| 12.14.10 @ 2:07AM

You're A Slandering Liar Nick.
You're An Israel Firster Boot Licker.

Nick| 12.13.10 @ 8:01PM

Tim*,

I asked months ago, and you never answered.
Are you a Pope Pius the Tenther?

Tim*| 12.14.10 @ 2:27AM

I'm A Catholic Leaguer & Pope Pius XII'er Israel Firster Nick.
Apparently, You're An Israel Firster Slandering Punk Nick.
Wanna Make Somethin' Of It.?

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 2:10PM

Tim*,

How have I slandered you?

Also, are you trying to say that Pope Pius XII was not a true pope?

gil knappmiller| 12.13.10 @ 10:13AM

--check 5 Matthew 39, KJV---

Petronius| 12.13.10 @ 10:16AM

The churches are no longer run by Men. Pacifism in or out of the sanctuary has become a boiler plate excuse for cowardice. When threatened by a would be predator the pacifist will do anything except fight. His penchant for strong government and collectivism coincide with avoiding any conflict. That level of regulation precludes conflict if there's nothing to fight over or fight for.
All for the avoidance of any kind of pain.
Muslims look at this behavior and laugh. So do the tough guys who don't go to church, but then, they are not welcome.

P.Smith| 12.13.10 @ 10:21AM

As far as individual responsibility goes in protecting self, family and property there are very clear rules in the Old Testament which gives a person the rights of protection and these laws have not been rescinded either. In fact reading the Bible one has to come to conclusion that for a man to not arm himself is irresponsible.

For a Christian to teach and believe in peace at all cost, but then live under the umbrella of security provided by the state is hypocritical. If you believe in pacifism, then start your own country and leave out the standing army, police and restrict the population in its ownership of weapons.

For the Christian that believes war is never an answer, that violence never solves a problem, then you are denying what the Holy Scriptures teaches about the true nature of men.

Len| 12.13.10 @ 10:27AM

It's not hypocritical, rather when one has his treasure in heaven, then one's life and possessions in this world hold no weight. You are the one attempting to pervert scripture by making a claim that men are to fight for earthly kingdoms, rather than the kingdom of heaven. Prayer, and intercession are the answer, and more difficult than taking up arms, so who is the real man? When did any of the disciples tell the churches to engage in earthly concerns, rather they were told not to, and many became martyrs because they were busy preaching the gospel, not politics.

P.Smith| 12.13.10 @ 12:06PM

I left the first part off mistakenly in my earlier post.

War is ordained by GOD as necessary to restrain evil men, nowhere within the Bible has the institution of war been rescinded. One of the ways that the LORD disciplined and or destroyed evil nations, including Israel, was war. One day when earth is ruled by Christ war will no longer be necessary, but that day has not yet arrived.

For the Christian that believes war in not the answer, that violence never solves a problem, then you are denying what the Holy Scriptures teaches about the true nature of men.

Len| 12.13.10 @ 12:34PM

You have just uttered a blatant lie. Nowhere does the scripture speak of war restraining evil men. God says it His spirit that restrains evil, so to give men credit by the use of violence in repelling evil, is to deny that God alone can hold back evil, and denies all that the scriptures teach concerning heavenly priorities and humbling oneself before God.

Ryan| 12.13.10 @ 12:59PM

Does God not use men to hold back evil, through the Spirit?

How did He go about vanquishing evil - such as the peoples who would not worship Him - in the Old Testament?

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 3:29PM

Len,

I present the following example:

"Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to entangle Him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Hero'di-ans, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put Me to the test, you hypocrites? Show Me the money for the tax." And they brought Him a coin. And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." When they heard it, they marveled; and they left Him and went away." Mt. 22:15-22.

I say and believe (in my own conscience), that if your country goes to war, you ought to help defend it.

However, as far as I know, if one has a moral objection to war, known as a conscientious objection, you are allowed to be dismissed or to serve in a non-violent capacity.

What a great country! In the country that God founded, He has made a way to serve, without pangs of conscience.

Agreed?

Len| 12.13.10 @ 3:43PM

Margie that is such a twisting of the meaning of scripture it is disgusting. All that Yeshua was saying was to give taxes, not serve the state, as one can only have one master..ONE MASTER. God did not found this country, only once has he done so, with Israel.

If one follows God, then as Paul the apostle said we are strangers in a strange land. DO you understand that? There is no allegiance to earthly kingdoms, only to the heavenly kingdom, and in that kingdom the calling is to win men's souls, not change political landscapes.

Tell me when you see the evil going on around you are you more interested in punishing people for it, or for delivering them from it so they may enter the kingdom of Heaven? Do you spend more time condemning evil, or more time on your knees crying out for people to know the Messiah? You don't have to answer me, but this is a good test of whether one is a pharisee concerned with outward appearances, or a disciple concerned with the hearts of men.

YeloStalyn| 12.13.10 @ 4:26PM

If you are walking down the street and see two men, one beating up the other, do you use force and impose your will on the one to prohibit him from beating on the other? Or do you simply stand in the way and get pummled, fall over, and let the aggressor continue to beat on the first man once he's done with you? Or do you do nothing and let the weaker of the two suffer?
Force is a means for man to restrain men from acting out in evil ways in what small capacity we can on earth. This isn't to say we're more powerful than God and that we can erradicate evil. Just that we can retard it's results on our life here on earth, even if only slightly in teh grand scheme of things. Should we not attempt to make this place as wholesome as we can while ALSO praying for the lost?
If we should not consider ourselves with this world, and instead focus ONLY on the next... we should stop spending time feeding the poor and focusing on their physical state and instead only pray for them. What's the difference providing them food so they don't starve versus restraining someone who would kill them? Both are actions to prevent undesirable events in this physical world you just tried to argue we should not worry about. Yet, I would imagine, you have no problem (and here, rightly so) feeding the poor or taking care of the sick.

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 7:02PM

Jesus didn't say anything about not serving the "state." You did.

Jesus made it quite clear in His teaching. We are to live by the laws of the land while we're here. You don't happen to agree. Oh well!

And as far as God founding this country? Has He not created all things? His Hand is in everything, and He uses His people.. as He used them to found this country. If you disagree with that, you join the ranks of the Leftists and those who seek to revise history.

As to your last round of nonsense: I don't punish anyone, God does. But He does want Christians to condemn evil, and I do:

"And he said to man, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.'" Job 28:28.

"But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let every one who names the Name of the Lord depart from iniquity." 2 Tim. 2:19.

Last but not least: God does the delivering.

"But how are men to call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10:14.

And what does a preacher preach? Do you not mention the issue of Sin and that that is from what one needs to be saved from the flames of Hell? Can you not mention Hell? Do you say to yourself and to others, "Sin? What Sin?"

If you are truly a Christian you are called on to condemn Sin.. wherever you see it. Otherwise you cannot truly say "you are concerned with the hearts of men."

Nick| 12.13.10 @ 4:14PM

Len,

Could you then explain the Book of Johan, please?

The Word of God comes to Jonah, around 790-750 B.C., and commands him to go to Nineveh, and preach repentance. Why? So, He could use Nineveh to punish the evil Kingdom of Isreal in the north.

Jonah tries to run away, to no avail. He doesn't want to see Israel destroyed. He is swallowed by a great FISH and ultimately does what God commanded.

Nineveh repents and conqueres the Kingdom of Israel, in 721 B.C., and the 10 tribes are scattered.

God tells Jonah that Nineveh will not escape His judgement in the end. They were conquered around 612 B.C.

Is this not an example of the Word, i.e. Christ, using men and war to restrain evil men?

Len| 12.13.10 @ 4:40PM

First error is the attempt AGAIN to take an example from BPO (before the pouring out of the Holy Spirit), and apply it to today, when Christ charged his disciples to preach the gospel, heal the sick, attend to the poor, NOT fight for earthly kingdoms that in their origin are contrary to God as they are established without submitting themselves to God, nor has God approached them to do so.

Anyway, the simple answer is no. As you said it was to punish, not restrain. If any nation was to be used to restrain evil it would have been Israel, but God commanded them to be an EXAMPLE to the nations by their observance of His laws and their worship of Him, not by going out to war against the evil nations around them.

13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This passage makes clear that we are not to attach ourselves to earthly kingdoms.
--------------------------------------------------------------
3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

7Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

8For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

9That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.

10For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.

11Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.

12For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

13But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.

14For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:

15Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,

16To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

17But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

18For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The above passage shows that our warfare is not earthly, and that those who take pride in a country rather than the Lord are in error.

--------------------------------------------------------------

4No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Nick| 12.13.10 @ 6:15PM

Len,

Yes, Saint Paul teaches that when you become a Christian, you become a soldier who engages in spiritual warfare. I agree with you.

And, yes, Paul told Timothy he was a soldier for Christ. Timothy was a bishop.

The author of Hebrews is recounting Abraham's family journey, so, I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion.

Of course we are in spiritual warfare with the Enemy. And, we should never put an earthly kingdom above the Lord. It is God, Country, Family. In that order.

But, neither of these facts condemn the defending of your country. Wars sometime have to be fought. Even against other Christians. It is terrible and regrettable, but is sometimes required.

Or, else, there would be letters from Saint Peter, or Saint Paul, or Saint John, or one of the other Apostles instructing the bishops to tell their centurion converts to leave the Roman army. There are none.

The great Doctor of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom (347-407), was a huge proponent of the honor and sacrifice of military service.

Len| 12.13.10 @ 6:33PM

You again state that serving more than one master is acceptable. No man can serve God and country, the scriptures are clear that to live for God is to no longer live for this world and certainly not to give allegiance (God and Belial) to something other than God.

As for the book of Hebrews reference, well that you don't get it says a lot. The passage says that our home is not here, we are not to live for this world, nor to support it.

Paul also never told slaveowners to set their slaves free. To make an argument out of what is missing is rather faulty, and assumes that it was an issue that needed to be addressed, where it may be that other issues were more significant. Please, the scriptures hardly are a code of laws detailing every area of life. The scriptures show that God takes men where they are at, and allows them to grow into righteousness, so what may be a stumbling block at first may be addressed by one's maturity with God.

Nick| 12.13.10 @ 7:17PM

Len,

I am in no way claiming it is okay to serve two masters. This is just not true.

Your Book of Hebrews quote is a stretch to prove your point. No one is arguing that we should not live for this world. I'm arguing that serving in the military is not an impediment to serving God.

I'm also not trying to make the point that the Scriptures " are a code of laws detailing every area of life." My point was that if the quotes meant what you were claiming they do, then you would think there would be an accompaning teaching not to serve in the military. I was not as clear as I should've been, sorry.

Serving in the military, or police force, is not serving a master. It is protecting your fellow man against harm from those who would do evil against him.

How far are you going to take this? If a police officer pulled you over, and demanded you exit your vehicle (because you matched the discription of a suspect,) would you comply? Or, would you be serving two masters?

Christ said to "render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasars." He also told Pilate that he had no authority over Him, except that which the Father gave him.

Saint Paul also told the Romans (chapter 13) this:

1Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.
2 Therefore, he that resists the power resists the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.
3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and you shall have praise from the same.
4 For he is God's minister to you, for good. But if you do that which is evil, fear: for he bears not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil.
5 Wherefore be subject of necessity: not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.
7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.

Nick| 12.13.10 @ 8:08PM

Oops!
That should've been: "No one is arguing that we SHOULD live for this world."

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 12:11AM

Len?

Yoo-hoo? Lehhhhnnnnn?
Were'd you go?

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 7:08PM

Len,

If you're going to quote the Bible you really ought to at least take the time to write the address of the verses.

You say, "This passage makes clear that we are not to attach ourselves to earthly kingdoms."

We are not to hope in this life, that is clearly what it is saying. It says nothing about not fighting for your country, you are reading that in. And if you do not think that we shouldn't try to change the course of how this country is being run as you mentioned in an above post, then you shouldn't vote. After all... you're voting on Earth!

LEN| 12.13.10 @ 10:28PM

Margie, no you don't have a country, you either have the kingdom of God, or an earthly kingdom. You deny the plain message of the scriptures, and twist such a passage of paying taxes into serving earthly kings. Are the North Koreans to serve their caesar? No, and it's not because they're clearly evil, it's because paying taxes is not the same as giving one's service to men who erect kingdoms apart from God.

I know your type and you don't even need to answer my question earlier, but you know nothing of prayer and intercession, of fasting and weeping for lost souls. You lift up false idols of earthly kingdoms and have set your eyes on earthly things. You can take your false religion and nonsense and hide behind it, but you clamor more for your God the USA than the Christ and complain more about wickedness than lost souls..no more need be said.

Margie| 12.14.10 @ 12:13PM

Len,

You are not only twisting the Bible to suit your anti-American and anti-war philosophy, but you are twisted in your mind and speech towards others here.

NO ONE said, including Jesus, that we are to serve the "state" as you put it.

Nick and I and others have quoted numerous Bible verses that show EXACTLY what God desires. That while we are here we are to obey the laws of the land. YOU are the one twisting that fact, by saying that that is what WE are trying to say!

Now, if you do not think according to your own conscience that you ought to fight for your own country, then so be it!

But do NOT falsely accuse others for so doing, according to their own consciences, because then you are bringing condemnation down upon your own little (small) head.

For it is written:

"For why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples?" 1 Cor. 10:29

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 7:35PM

Len says:

"The above passage shows that our warfare is not earthly, and that those who take pride in a country rather than the Lord are in error."

You can take pride in both. I am proud of God and I am proud of my country, whether you like it or not!

We are not spiritual beings yet. If we were to take you seriously then we should live as Monks. But being a Christian isn't about hiding out and not participating. Not loving the world doesn't mean not voting, not getting married, not fighting for your country, et al.

It's all about on where your HOPE is.

Len| 12.13.10 @ 10:30PM

Another thing..take pride? Really? Have you ever opened a bible? Pride goeth before a fall, and as the scriptures say your (paraphrasing) your words reveal where your heart is.

Margie| 12.14.10 @ 12:23PM

"Let the lying lips be dumb, which speak insolently against the righteous in pride and contempt." Ps. 31:18.

simon templar| 12.14.10 @ 11:33AM

Is there no man here willing to defend the name of the Lord? Len, guess who said that? King David...friend of the Lord, the young man who challenged seasoned soldiers too afraid to stand up to one smart mouthed blasphemous Philistine who had been attacking the people of Israel. David was ready to use violence at God's command to repel the evil and the apathy. I think you said it clearly a few post back when you stated that war and violence should only be used in defense of a people or nation? Did you not say that? Well, that is all P Smith is saying..he does not believe that non-violence is an absolute for a christain based on his understanding of scripture. His point is well taken...your points as well.

Jeremiah| 12.13.10 @ 10:37AM

A few months after 911 I was at a Daily Mass I regularly attended at a shrine. The priest that day gave a little homily condemning the attacks but noting, that, as Christians, our only response must be entirely pacifist. After Mass I told him rather intensely, "I need to talk to you." I had had quite enough of some of the relentlessly pacifist claptrap.

So we went and talked. I told him that those who think Christianity must be relentlessly pacifist confused Jesus' mission with His message. It was part of Jesus' earthly mission to act as innocent victim on our behalf, and He lived that mission perfectly. But when it did not interfere with His mission, such as, say, when the moneychangers outside the temple offended His Father's honor, Christ was content to use whips and cords to violently chase them out and knock their tables over.

I pointed out that Jesus did sometimes condemn people for the nature of the work they did, such as tax collectors (publicans) - you know, the people who enable leftist 'social justice' crusades and the welfare state in modern times. But not once, in His many interactions with soldiers, did He ever condemn their work or tell them they must find a new line of work to be righteous. I noted that the act of faith we say before communion, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed," is based on a soldier's act of faith.

Finally, I took him to Luke 22:36, where Jesus instructed His disciples, in anticipation of His departure, that any who did not have a sword should buy one. He ordered them to get a sword! And I noted that His disciples response was to note that they had two swords among them already. If Jesus was an absolute pacifist, I demanded, do you think He would not have noticed that his own people were carrying swords for the three years of his public ministry? That He wouldn't have ordered them to get rid of them? And most certainly, that He would not have ordered them to get swords in preparation for His departure?

I was rather heated and I expected the priest to defend his position. To my surprise, he was surprised at what I had told and showed him - and quite enthused about it. "You're right," he said.

He explained that he had thought we had to take the whole package if we were to be Christians and had never really examined whether Jesus was really a radical pacifist, but that was what he had been taught. He was relieved and delighted that he no longer felt obliged to proclaim that message.
We became rather good friends.

The idea that Christianity requires mindless pacifism as the proper response to evil and tyranny is not supported in Scripture, nor in any coherent theological philosophy. (And yes, I know there are some rather large theological philosophies of long standing that do insist on mindless pacifism. I have read most of them. But note that I said COHERENT theological philosophies that are firmly grounded in Scripture).

Sheila| 12.13.10 @ 1:31PM

That's a wonderful example and clear theology, Jeremiah. Thank you! I, too believe in muscular Christianity, uninfected by the liberalism and pacifism so brainlessly practiced today.

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:38AM

Jesus was though. If you look at the historical time, the moral response according to most people here would have been exactly the one he warned against: eschewing pacifism and instead joining the revolt against roman occupation of Israel.

I'm not a total pacifist, but things like this seem to forget that Christians first belong to another kingdom and fight another battle. No amount of earthly fighting can solve a heavenly problem.

Nick| 12.15.10 @ 2:16PM

Dblade,

We also have the duty, and responsibility, to protect our own live's. Life is a precious gift from God.

If you are a husband, or parent, you have the responsibility to protect your wife, and children, from those who would do them harm.

If you see anyone threatening anybody else's life, you have the duty to help protect them, by whatever means necessary, up to, and including, taking the perpetrator's life.

If you live in a society, you are subject to that society's laws, and benefit from it's protection. If you are an able bodied man, you are obligated to help defend that society from attack, if it becomes necessary.

This part of being a follower of Christ. It is part of "love thy neighbor as thyself"command of the Lord.

martin j smith| 12.13.10 @ 10:43AM

My view may not count in your eyes len but for me who cares !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Its not what is written in any scripture for me but what is actually happening around us by other men--all of us being mortals and imperfect. One can quote anything but unless these is historical evidence that pacifism prevented violence then that belief is logically invalid. WWII is an excellent example of the failure of pacifism aka appeasement.

Len| 12.13.10 @ 10:49AM

No one said anything anything about preventing violence, that is what happens and will happen in a world where men have not submitted to God. Indeed the scriptures make clear that violence will increase as the return of the Messiah is closer.

Doc| 12.13.10 @ 11:11AM

What is really interesting is that those who espouse nonviolence and embrace pacifism are violent. It may take a month, a year or even a lifetime to achieve the the ideal of nonviolence and during that interim pacifists are still violent
in word and deed. I' knew a very devoted Quaker who stole thousands of dollars from her best friend and never gave it a second thought-that is violence against another human being. But the good thing about life is that we all pass away -nothing lasts and that's a blessing.

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:55AM

I'd say "fallen" rather than violent, and yeah. I don't think anyone could do much but say "Lord, forgive me!" and try to change no matter what their views are.

Career Soldier| 12.13.10 @ 11:28AM

As a Christian and a soldier, I always took comfort in John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

This is significant to me because my savior was the embodiment of love and his instruction to me is clear; the greatest of all love is not the love of God, or of family, but the courage to defend one's friends.

Old Soldier| 12.13.10 @ 2:16PM

The opposite of fear is love.

Drane| 12.14.10 @ 8:40PM

An egregious and obvious misreading of the text. Laying down ones life for friends is not killing their or one's own enemies. It is dying, willingly for them. It is what Jesus did. And what he calls his followers to do.

Matthew 5.43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven;
There is a huge difference between the Jesus way, which is to suffer violence and the way of the soldier, which is to kill.

Mark 10:42So Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. 45For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Luke 9.23:Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

kylie estwick| 12.13.10 @ 11:48AM

I am SO glad that Im hearing more of this nowadays. Its time for Christians to REALLY be Christians and live the life Christ meant for us and to NOT use the label of "Christian" and baring your cross for all to see (Im talking to you Sarah) for the sake of political gain.

Too Many Tims| 12.13.10 @ 11:54AM

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi. "

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Orwell

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:58AM

I think there's a big difference between organized, secular pacifism and individual Christian pacifism. A christian really only says a christian must do this, and even then, in the end they have no power to force anyone to do anything. That pacifism is also not founded on trying to establish a secular peace, but in adherence to another kingdom entirely.

However, Orwell should know the limits of force, considering what he went through in the Spanish Civil War.

mames| 12.13.10 @ 12:03PM

Just another retelling of God word to fit the model they have already preconcieved. Throughout scripture there are men of God serving in a variety of armies and god himself commends them for it. Maybe these "theologians" aught to become biblical theologians.

Richard Baker| 12.13.10 @ 12:03PM

When I was a young Soldier in the early '70s in Germany, I went to a Priest because I wondered if my being a Soldier was not consistent with being a Christian. Father showed me a passage in the Bible that Jesus did not condemn the Centurion, in fact Jesus marvelled at his faith, and other passages in the New Testament where He did not condemn Soldiers for being Soldiers but admonished them for their conduct against Citizens. Where this pacifism comes from is a mystery to me and is decidedly not supported by the Bible. Cowardice must be the answer. Remember, Jesus angrily raised a ruckus in the Temple when he saw what His Father's House had become. Would the pacifists have had an encounter group session, instead?

C.K. Amos| 12.13.10 @ 7:15PM

"Cowardice must be the answer."

Maybe, maybe not. Some people may genuinely not be able to put themselves in a position in which they could take another human's life. Some may not also be able, according to their conscience, to participate in that enterprise.

"Would the pacifists have had an encounter group session, instead?"

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the passivists would've.

CalMark| 12.13.10 @ 12:29PM

What about Joshua at Jericho?
What about the legions of Saul?
What about David's battles?

Irrelevant, since so many so-called "Christian" so-called "leaders" have abandoned the Bible in favor of Marx.

This too shall pass. One only hopes the nation survives until it does.

Len | 12.13.10 @ 12:38PM

What about them? The Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, and the charge to preach the gospel not yet given by the Messiah. America is not Israel which had a covenant with God, and thus is the only nation that could ever truly be endorsed by God.
This nation will not be saved, nor any other that has it's origins outside of a covenant with God. Stop living for the things of this world and you won't have such problems with it.

CalMark| 12.13.10 @ 12:59PM

I don't argue with zealots.

As done here, they simply dismiss anything that's not convenient to their worldview.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.10 @ 1:02PM

Len,

yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

...Easy for you to say. You have never paid the price for freedom have you?

You remind me of the PETA members who are not strict vegetarians...In fact, shame on you for murdering harmless tomatoes..........dumbass!

...sorry arsed hypocrites.

Ken

Anthony| 12.13.10 @ 12:50PM

Gee, with all these Christian pacifists, who will then serve in the Army of God?
Proof positive again that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Marksman| 12.13.10 @ 1:30PM

The story of King David in 1 Samuel 30 finds him in a predicament. The Amalekites had raided his camp and burned it down. The raiders had taken all the people captive, including David's family, and the families of all his men. He lamented the sad situation. If he had been a liberal he would have then given up saying, "That's life. I guess I'll just move to New Zealand and live sustainably. Maybe raiders will leave me alone because of my environmentally conscious behavior." Of course, the real King David asked God if he should "go up" against the raiding party. The God of the Bible said, "Go after them. I have given them into your hand." The God of the Bible is not timid. For those who trust him, he will give them victory. Christians should not be pacifists. The US military actually needs Christian officers to keep its actions moral, otherwise it would probably do things like let the violent Islamists attack the unarmed Christian population in Iraq. The reason for having Christian soldiers is the same reason for having Christian politicians, and Christian business leaders.

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:34AM

None of them were Christians, CalMark. David also paid by watching his son Absalom rise up against him, Saul went mad with jealousy hearing david's exploits, and Joshua soon was followed by Judges.

I also don't see you mentioning the belief that invasion by foreign powers was a sign of Israel's sin and a judgment on them for forgetting God. You cannot separate the two if you evoke the heroes.

Len| 12.13.10 @ 3:50PM

As I stated above, it is a twisting of scripture to take what was done when the Spirit of God was not poured out and the commission to preach the gospel had not yet been given. America is not Israel, God did not come down and enter into a covenant with the people of this country to preach democracy or freedom, and the spiritual battle is much more difficult than taking up arms. In none of the epistles did the apostles commend the churches for fighting for country or being involved politically, rather they were instructed to not be concerned with earthly matters.

Yikes!| 12.15.10 @ 12:17AM

Len, stating something over and over does not make it any more correct, or intelligible. What liberal Bible college did you attend that gave you such a short sighted view of God. You seem to think that the Old Testament is about humanity. Re-read it. It is only about God. So, now you can read your Old Testament Bible correctly and not twist the scriptures so liberally.

victor| 12.15.10 @ 12:35AM

Yikes:
"So, now you can read your Old Testament Bible correctly and not twist the scriptures so liberally."

Len, as well as others, remind me of what Alistair Begg said once:

There are those that have Bibles, but don't read them
And there are those that read their Bibles, but don't believe them.

Len seems to be from both camps.

Pelligrino| 12.14.10 @ 12:50AM

Thank you, Marksman. Yes, our military (and that of nations who seek to be upright in this world) desperately need committed Christians in the ranks -- all levels.

We do not begin to have enough true (where life deeds match the words) Christians in our Armed Forces today.

We need tens of thousands more.

Doctor Right| 12.13.10 @ 1:33PM

Whenever Christian peace-niks (and I know a few at my un-Liberal church) start spouting-off about "peace", I generally try and remind them about how peaceful NAZI Germany was in the 1930's to shut-them up. Usually, they have no reply.

"Peace" without freedom is not a virtue.

Hank Rearden| 12.13.10 @ 2:28PM

The attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on a Sunday morning. Chaplains were out on the ships in the harbor to hold Sunday services. On one of the ships, as the Japanese bombs were falling,. a group of men were trying to get the covers off and bring an antiaircraft gun into action. The story is that a young sailor ran up to the chaplain and said "Father the Bible says 'thou shalt not kill.' I don't know what to do!"

The chaplain immortalized himself with his answer: "Son, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

I have always thought that was the informal motto of the Republic.

Organized police forces and armies are there to provide the space for civilization to exist. Without them, there is no limit to the barbarity that society can descend to. They are the guardians against random and wanton killing and torture and for that reason are doing God's work.

When Christ said "Blessed are the peacemakers" he did not mean peace at any price. which is the pacifist position and he implied that there would be war, else why would you need peacemakers?

YeloStalyn| 12.13.10 @ 4:47PM

The peacemaker is one who MAKES peace. Doing nothing means making nothing. Therefore, there must be some action on the part of those who seek peace. This action? To restrain the evil and wicked who would bring chaos. How do you do that? With force.
God bless soldiers who follow Him.

Pelligrino| 12.14.10 @ 12:55AM

"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!" A great song. Yes, a song. I remember very vividly Mrs. Getrude belting that tune out on her upright piano in music class. That and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" were class favorites. 3rd Grade at grammar school in a certain beltway community in Maryland. Note: A public school. And, no, these songs are not sung there today.

(a World War I popular tune, if I am not mistaken)

Anita in Idaho| 12.13.10 @ 3:09PM

Two words: Alvin York

Pall Leosson| 12.13.10 @ 3:57PM

The very well known phrase "Fight the good fight" is from that great Christian apostle Saint Paul, is it not? Also, I believe his symbol (or one of his symbols) in Chrisitan symbology is an unsheathed sword.

Vasu Murti | 12.13.10 @ 4:12PM

Gandhi once noted that "the only people who don’t see Christ and his teachings as nonviolent are Christians."

From history, however, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists.

For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

Professor G.J. Heering in The Fall of Christianity, notes that "...the gospel condemns war...We have primarily to recognize, however hard it may be to do so, that the waging of war has no place in the moral and spiritual teachings of Jesus."

Hippolytus, second century Christian father and historian, who wrote what he considered the apostolic tradition and so the authentic Christian teaching, maintained that when he applied for admission to the Christian fellowship, a soldier must refuse to kill, even if he were commanded by his superiors to do so, and also must not take an oath.

Justin Martyr, the principal apologist of the early church (AD 150) wrote that:

"Christians seek no earthly realm, but a heavenly, and that this will be a realm of peace. The prophecy of Isaiah—that swords shall be beaten into plowshares and spears to pruning hooks—begins to find fulfillment in the missions of Christians. For we refrain from the making of war on our enemies, but gladly go to death for Christ’s sake.

"Christians are warriors of a different world, peaceful fighters. For Caesar’s soldiers possess nothing which they can lose more precious than their life, while our love goes out to that eternal life which God will give."

Origen, the great Christian father of the second century, and a vegetarian, would hear nothing of earthly military service: he regarded it as completely forbidden:

"We Christians no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus who is our leader. We do not serve as soldiers under the Emperor, even though he requires it.

"Persons who possess authority to kill, or soldiers, should not kill at all, even when it is commanded of them. Every one who receives a distinctive leading position, or a magisterial power, and does not clothe himself in the weaponlessness of which is becoming to the gospel, should be separated from the flock."

Although the son of a military officer, the early Christian father Tertullian (AD 200) was a vegetarian opposed to militarism and violence. The question Tertullian faced was not whether a Christian may be a soldier, but whether a soldier may even be allowed within the church. He answered "No." The soldier who becomes a Christian ought to leave the army.

"One soul cannot be true to two lords — God and Caesar. How shall a Christian man wage war; nay, how shall he even be a soldier in peace time, without the sword, which the Lord has taken away?--for in disarming Peter he ungirded every soldier."

The great church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, denounced war and wrote: "The whole earth is drenched in adversaries’ blood, and if murder is committed, privately it is a crime, but if it happens with State authority, courage is the name for it: not the goodness of the cause, but the greatness of the cruelty makes the abominations blameless."

Attacking even capital punishment, Cyprian wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted to guiltless to put even the guilty to death."

The Christian writer Lactantius of Bithinia wrote:

"When God prohibits killing, He not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which is not allowed even by public laws, but he warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men.

"And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier for justice itself is his military service, nor to accuse anyone of a capital offense, because it makes no difference whether they kill with a sword or with a word, since killing itself is forbidden."

In her 1991 essay, "The Bible and Peace and War," Ursula King asks, "how are we to explain that Jesus, the founder of Christianity, is often called ‘the Prince of Peace’ and yet Western civilization so deeply shaped by the Christian story which is clearly pacifist in origin and essence, has become so militaristic from an early stage in its history?"

King quotes Christian pacifist John Ferguson from War and Peace in the World’s Religions:

"The historic association of the Christian faith with nations of commercial enterprise, imperialistic expansion and technological advancement has meant that Christian peoples, although their faith is one of the most pacifistic in its origins, have a record of military activity second to none."

According to King, "In the early Church, pacifism was the dominant position up to the reign of Constantine, when Christianity became a state religion. Until then no Christian author approved of Christian participation in battle, whereas in AD 314 the Council of Arles decreed that Christians who gave up their arms in time of peace should be excommunicated."

In Theology and Social Structure, Robin Gill has written:

"The situation of the pre-Constantine church appears all the more remarkable when it is realized that no major Christian church or denomination has been consistently pacifist since Constantine.

"Indeed, Christian pacifism has been largely confined to a small group of sects, such as the Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Brethren and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Further, pacifists within the churches, as distinct from sects, have in times of war been barely tolerated by their fellow Christians."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that in today’s world the choice is either nonviolence or nonexistence.

CalMark| 12.13.10 @ 5:09PM

Incoherence alert! Bigotry alert!

"Gandhi once noted that 'the only people who don’t see Christ and his teachings as nonviolent are Christians.' "

Conclusion: Christianity MUST be per dictates of politically-correct members of other religions, even if those religions not are even remotely related to Christianity.

Translation: You Christians are too stupid to understand your religion--so we enlightened non-Christians will MAKE you do it right.

Just like the Communists who took over Christianity in the U.S.S.R. and created an "officially licensed version."

Craziness and vicious anti-Christian bigotry vie for supremacy in the post above. No more need be said.

Doctor Right| 12.13.10 @ 5:24PM

Well said.

The day I start taking advice from a Hindu on Christianity is the day I stop being a Christian.

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:14AM

When the other disciples saw what was about to happen, they exclaimed, "Lord, should we fight? We brought the swords!"

And one of them slashed at the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear.

But Jesus said, "Don't resist anymore." And he touched the place where the man's ear had been and healed him.

Luke 22:50-52

Margie| 12.15.10 @ 2:35PM

Yes, this was because it was the will of God that Jesus had to go to the cross and die for the Sin of the world. The disciples were interfering. So I do not think that you can use this out of context like that.

And the King James version says, "Suffer ye thus far." not " Don't resist anymore."

Margie| 12.15.10 @ 2:55PM

"eaō toutou heōs."
From the original Greek translation, "Suffer ye not."

The present, active, imperative tense, and a command by Jesus to the disciple in that moment.

Dblade| 12.18.10 @ 1:56PM

I think the point was made in general as well. Christians were not to resist with force in that because heavenly aims were trumped by God's plan. If you go on to look at the early church, they continued in that line until Constantine made it an official religion, and its growth had little to do with the sword.

Dblade| 12.18.10 @ 1:57PM

typo: replace heavenly with earthly.

Nick| 12.13.10 @ 6:38PM

VM the neo-pagan,

As I noted above, the great Doctor of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom, was a huge proponent of the honor and sacrifice of military service.

Also, Jesus Christ, as rabbi, i.e. teacher, of his followers, would have been the one who killed the Passover lamb.

He would begin by saying prayers, after which He would have slit the lamb's throat with a knife. This was relatively painless. Then He would've roasted it. Finally, He, the Apostles, and the other disciples would've ATE the lamb.

Christ most likely did this for the three years of His ministry.

BenZacharia| 12.14.10 @ 9:19AM

Saint John Chrysostom author of "Eight Homilies Against the Jews"?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall.....jews6.html

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 2:03PM

BenZacharia,

Yes. That Saint John Chrysostom.

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:19AM

For this is what the Lord himself said, and I pass it on to you just as I received it. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

1 Cor: 11:23-24

He also became a Lamb that was not killed so humanely. One that was led silently to his death. You wonder how he must have felt if he did what you said, and saw himself in the eyes of each one.

Nick| 12.15.10 @ 2:25PM

Dblade,

There is no "if [H]e did [slay the lamb]." He did.

Christ is referred to as "rabbi" many times in the Gospels.

It was the rabbi's job to slaughter the Passover Lamb. That is historical fact.

Dblade| 12.18.10 @ 2:00PM

His disciples called him that: he never was a Rabbi, and he broke rabbinical tradition as much as followed it, disregarding rabbinical attitudes of the sabbath. That was his argument-he was greater than the entire rabbinical system because he was sent from the One who made it.

Nick| 12.19.10 @ 7:12PM

Dblade,

Christ was an observant Jew.
The only person Who truly and perfectly followed the Law.

There were several Rabbinical schools, and traditions, in the first century, A.D. Christ was considered the leader of just another sect, by His contemporaries. No serious Scriptural scholar contends that Christ was not a rabbi among His fellow Jews.

This is not controversial. Christ slayed the Passover lamb, and then, He, and His disciples, ate it. Christ would have eaten the Passover lamb every year of His life. He was no tree-hugging vegetarian.

oldfart| 12.13.10 @ 5:38PM

Mr. Witherington is what Lenin called a useful idiot.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.10 @ 6:08PM

CalMark,
Well spoken.

Len, Nevermind.
We have and will take the sin on our own shoulders, and protect your lilly white hands in the process.
In my own case, when I was drafted, I volunteered to fly med-evac choppers. I told the commander of the hospital that did my flight physical that I would rather make my contribution flying our wounded out if possible.

He told me that MOS had the highest casualty rate in the Army at that time. I merely said "OK".

See, I had learned to fly already. A quick course and I could be effective.
Sir, if you are an American, and have enjoyed all the fruits of being an American, then you are as "guilty" as any blood thirsty Rambo in our armed forces...or any soldier that fought with George Washington.

You have simply "delegated" the hard parts, and you have committed violence here today upon our veterans and armed service people.

To all you vets: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, IN WHATEVER ROLE YOU PLAYED AND IN WHATEVER MOS.

(I must disclose that I was never called to active duty. Vietnam was winding down and my service was not needed, even though I was on standby for two years.)

Len| 12.13.10 @ 6:37PM

Ken your continued arrogance marks you as an enemy of God (despite your having claimed to be a Christian..humility is surely one mark of one who serves the Lord). You also show you have no idea of what the kingdom of heaven is about, for one's life in this world does not need protecting when one will live in the presence of God forever.

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 7:42PM

Ahem.. I see you have the arrogance to say that Ken is an enemy of God.
I say you're a flaming hypocrite and a liar to boot.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.10 @ 8:01PM

Why, Margie,

Thank you. I just took this guy's stripes on my own back, and he decided it was "righteous" to give me a few more stripes from his own whip.

Fortunately, I had a dad who protected me from evil.
I gotta watch after This poor schmuk and his kids, in addition to my own kids.
Sad isn't it to live among cowards hiding behind righteousness?

simon templar| 12.14.10 @ 12:04PM

When Jesus said the greatest thing a man could do was lay down his life for his friends what exactly do you think he was talking about? You have a responsibility to defend and protect your family and community. When David called his troops to battle in defense of the nation what do you think the rally cry was? NO ONE here is advocating war for war sake nor believes that it should be used to solve every human problem nor is anyone advocating blind allegiance to the state and its foreign adventures. Ken is a patriot. We should be thanking him for his service not calling him an enemy of God. What you mistake for arrogance is confidence born out of age and experience.

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:44AM

"I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies will be right in your own household! If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. " Matt 10:35-37

I don't believe in a literal hatred, but Jesus puts following him even above "the responsibility to defend and protect your own community." I think this is more of the spirit of doing so-that in the end, allegiance to Christ is more.

I don't disagree that it's noble to do something in a self-sacrificial spirit, but there may be a time where you have to even lay down the desire to protect if it gets in the way of following God. I think we see that where a person winds up more concerned about protecting the Republic than following a faith.

Margie| 12.15.10 @ 3:13PM

You may not believe in a literal hatred, but God certainly does.

"The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and His soul hates him that loves violence." Ps. 11:5.

"There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers." Prov. 6:16-19.

His words speak for themselves, do they not?

If we are to excuse ourselves in the name of "not hating" then it allows for the justification of all kinds of Sin. Calling an ace an ace is part of what God calls us to do.

Religion teaches its own thing.

God teaches His own.

Simon Templar| 12.15.10 @ 5:38PM

Your clever circular argument and false premise is why I usually refrain from participating in religious discussions when regarding political subjects such as the state, war, etc. It's a no win situation really because so many people just love to sound so high and pious like our friend, Len, and also have the arrogance to take particular scripture references out of context to justify just about anything on the planet. A favorite these days is claiming that the bible supports communism!
You write, "I don't believe in a literal hatred, but Jesus puts following him even above "the responsibility to defend and protect your own community." I think this is more of the spirit of doing so-that in the end, allegiance to Christ is more."
Whaaa? Where do you get this load? You don't believe in a literal hatred? I am not sure what the hell that means in the first place..perhaps you do not believe in literal evil either, right? Jesus did not put himself above defending your own family. What rot! What does it mean to follow him? The God of Israel is the same God of the New Testament. By following Him you do indeed protect your family and your nation..you stand as a free man with inalienable rights given to you by Him...you defend that Republic and your Israel which has been given to you by the same. He would expect nothing less. My faith and my republic are not at odds but serve the same master, In God We Trust!

C.K. Amos| 12.13.10 @ 6:56PM

Who cares what the "elites" say?

Sounds like some have confused pacific with passive.

C.K. Amos| 12.13.10 @ 7:09PM

"But removing Christians from government hardly bodes well for a nation increasingly spiritually adrift."

Agree. By choice or intimidation, Christians have not participated as much as they have in many civic responsibilities. That's contributed to the current chaos, political and social.

Pelligrino| 12.14.10 @ 1:52AM

There have been verses from the Bible posted above. I don't think I saw this:

"Praise be to the LORD my Rock who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. He is my loving God and my Fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield in whom I take refuge, who subdues people under me."

Psalm 144, verses 1,2

These words are attributed to King David.

I think that King David knew an awful lot about life. And God called David his beloved one.

I believe. And Jesus is my Saviour.

I will not fail to take up arms against evil. That is irresponsible.

One more really good hymn: "Onward Christian Soldiers"

Dblade| 12.15.10 @ 12:28AM

"We are human, but we don't wage war with human plans and methods. We use God's mighty weapons, not mere worldly weapons, to knock down the Devil's strongholds."

"For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms. "

2 cor and 6 eph (sorry verse numbers elude me.)

Margie| 12.15.10 @ 2:23PM

There is an excellent website that I use every day, that you might be interested in as well. It's BlueLetterBible.com.

Type in a word in the search bar and it will bring up every single word in the Bible. It has numerous versions as well.

I keep it in my tool bar. It is wonderful!

Dblade| 12.18.10 @ 2:00PM

Yes I use it as well. Excellent site.

simon templar| 12.15.10 @ 6:02PM

Yeah, and He also said, "I have not come to bring Peace but rather a Sword!" You remind me of Satan who just loved to quote scripture to the Christ in order to mislead him. He came to this world during a time of world domination by a severe empire and unprecedented spiritual corruption both in his home country and the known world. His contemporaries were arguing for political and military action which was seen as the only solution to their current problems. Well, we know how that turned out...Massada ring any bells?
He was trying to educate his followers to the FACT that the human problems of the day were not just political but were moreover spiritual. He was reminding them that it was more than just winning an election or installing another ruler. He was telling them that they would meet intense spiritual resistance when they went out to spread the truth and they should never forget that Fact. So, stop using scripture references to mislead people and stop taking them out of context. A word of warning....the bible also speaks about people who do this..let's just say there will be a special place for you in the after life.

Dblade| 12.18.10 @ 2:06PM

Odd then you take the "sword" scripture out of context. That was said in the context of that His own teachings would even set the members of a man's own family against each other. It has nothing to do with any political action.

Also, you seem to be damning me by agreeing with me:

"He was trying to educate his followers to the FACT that the human problems of the day were not just political but were moreover spiritual. He was reminding them that it was more than just winning an election or installing another ruler. "

That's sort of the argument against a lot of military action.

silk scarf | 12.14.10 @ 2:48AM

I have read your article.Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing. I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.this could really be something that people would like to see and read.

Yada| 12.14.10 @ 11:08AM

Food for thought: It appears to me that Scripture affirms individual pacificism and national non-pacificism.

This reconciles Christ's teachings on the golden rule and statement on "those that die by the sword", with Romans 13 regarding nations that do not bear the sword in vain.

Leroy W.| 12.14.10 @ 1:11PM

I take Christ literally here: Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

I think that Christ was telling his disciples that without him them must be prepared for armed self-defense.

Jimbo| 12.15.10 @ 1:38PM

Surely Witherington must know that our Messiah will not be a pacifist when he returns to slaughter his enemies and rule the nations with an iron rod! Does he think God was just kidding when he wrote that in His Word??

Margie| 12.15.10 @ 2:08PM

Now , now Jimbo. You are taking your stand with those of us Christians who take God at His word.

Don't you know that some actually believe that Hell isn't a real place? And some Religions falsely teach that we all go to Heaven when we die. If you disagree with this false doctrine, than you are consider a vile hateful creature. Why, it may even get you banned from AmSpec.

I take my stand on the Bible. I choose to stand with those who are hated for it. God bless you for doing the same. See you in Heaven, by the Grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Agree with God, and be at peace; thereby good will come to you." Job 22:21.

Dblade| 12.18.10 @ 2:14PM

I think that He was a pacifist when he allowed himself to be led to a Cross to save people that by all accounts deserved not to be saved, and that it's dangerous to exult in the slaughtering of his enemies considering you were one yourself.

"Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? "

Matt 18:32-33.

I can't fathom people rescued themselves even looking at hell or a judgment with anything but hope for mercy for everyone.

Kent| 12.20.10 @ 7:42PM

What fascinating discussion! Some observations:
1. This discussion is old, beginning in the earliest Christian times. We CAN learn from each other. Shouldn't the sheer magnitude of this issue humble us a bit in our opinions?
2. The Bible, OT and NT - Jesus and the early church - is surely mixed in the questions of allegiance, violence, justified force, and war. Your quotes demonstrate that fact with considerable clarity!
3. The early church tradition was also mixed. Some Fathers justified the use of deadly force, and many others (see Vasu Murti's post - 12.13.10 @ 4:12 pm) did not. Did you note how the only response to Vasu's post was the reference to Ghandi the Hindu? No one dealt with the considerable weight of evidence from those Church Fathers.
4. Maybe a critical issue not spoken much in this discussion is less about a Christian's use of force (violence) and more about the Chistian's use of DEADLY force. Isn't a key issue DEADLY force, whether and when and how a disciple of Jesus can use DEADLY force?
5. On this site, there are thoughtful, self-declared, Bible-studying, praying Christians (brothers and sisters with Christ and joint heirs with Him) discussing an important issue that Christians have been disagreeing about for 2 milleania. And the sheer volume of name-calling, judgmentalism, and dismissive language is saddening. I just read through the whole discourse and wonder if we are simply mirroring the partisan attitudes all around us.
We have a different allegiance, a different kingdom, a different ethic - Behld, ho these Christians love each other. I'm am a disciple of Jesus, and I disagree with you on this issue. Will you just dismiss me for being stupid?
The Bible surely gives us responsibility for calling out our brothers and sisters, but that responsibility comes well after giving ourselves in love and mutual respect first.
If I were an unbeliever, and if were came to this site looking for a thoughtful discussion among Christians about serving in the military and the police, I would be hard-pressed to find anything attractive about the way we Christians dealt with each other when discussing conflicting ideas!
For anyone who is still reading here, I encourage you to go back to the beginning and re-read the whole discussion and figure out how language that utterly dismisses a Christian brother/sister can be seen as honoring Christ and winning inquiring people to Christ!
We have to do better, my friends, or else we are indistinguishable from all those in our world who seem to believe they have the whole truth and need nothing from anyone who doesn't see things just the way they do.

Kent| 12.20.10 @ 8:11PM

Oops! I hunt-and-peck and don't aleways see my typos. Here's #5 above, now corrected:
5. On this site, there are thoughtful, self-declared, Bible-studying, praying Christians (brothers and sisters with Christ and joint heirs with Him) discussing an important issue that Christians have been disagreeing about for 2 milleania. And the sheer volume of name-calling, judgmentalism, and dismissive language is saddening. I just read through the whole discourse and wonder if we are simply mirroring the partisan attitudes all around us.
We have a different allegiance, a different kingdom, a different ethic. - Behold, how these Christians love each other.
I'm a disciple of Jesus, and I disagree with you on this issue. Will you just dismiss me for being stupid?
The Bible surely gives us responsibility for calling out our brothers and sisters, but that responsibility comes well after giving ourselves in love and mutual respect first.
If I were an unbeliever, and if came to this site looking for a thoughtful discussion among Christians about serving in the military and the police, I would be hard-pressed to find anything attractive about the way we Christians dealt with each other when discussing conflicting ideas!
For anyone who is still reading here, I encourage you to go back to the beginning and re-read the whole discussion and figure out how language that utterly dismisses a Christian brother/sister can be seen either as honoring Christ or as winning inquiring people to Christ!
We have to do better, my friends, or else we are indistinguishable from all those in our world who seem to believe they have the whole truth and need nothing from anyone who doesn't see things just the way they do.

MSriver| 12.28.10 @ 4:23AM

Kent : “Oops! I hunt-and-peck and don't aleways see my typos.”

First of all, in writing this, my second post and didn’t take the time to say how much I enjoy AS then, as I have enjoyed being an AS observer of comments every bit as much as what they comment on. From the earlier times of Talk-Radio to finally stepping online to this American institution, I say Hi AS!, I am Mike.

Kent, neither do I. Rather, I do spurn any such occurrences offensive at and in any amount up to this point – made by me. I do so purpose from this point on. I do also agree though sir, a fascinating discussion quite nearly as an interesting but complex approach. Some near, some farther from deriving Christian authority, but, often those of the later should be weighed as no less important. After I too read through and wondered on the makeup of some who exhibit sudden sharpness in exchange with others compels one to doubt if they will have the same temperance for those whom indeed differ may be surprised to find are your brothers, and who may be in need.

The one thing I would disagree with you is allowing so many who stand in un-Christian defiance yet are emphatic to identify with the flock, this giving passage out with the second to last paragraph’s “different.” While I think I understand what application you intended, also grants tender harbor to prior things needing pinning.

I would think most see this attempt succinctly improbable to a winning solution on the whole, intensifies with regard to the fashion one may record, a stew of problems of late are strewn between these; Battlefield – Command – Decree – Conviction – Interpretation – and back again when it apparently wasn’t yet ready to leave the house of God for these troubled ones. Troubled for reasons such as the above brother who directly corrected the oversight that day and may have recovered scores from future fetters if the Lord tarries, bears fruit towards the truth for me. But what about all this nesting for one’s position on what I was referring to earlier, and how wrong it is to bulk-up without the “all” of His council in one’s reasons Acts 20:27. Shall I remind some out of the Word, do nothing out of “Bias” I Tim 5:21.

So what good can overcome this strife that has developed as you say “2 milleania” ago? How handy if say the Father were to inspire in some form or fashion, a revelation, by dream or some manner to attend the same will of God, select theologians or possibly the church diverse element that would successfully implore with weight, the stringent resistance caught running from the Spirit of conviction, of judgment. Why, not because they are without, but because we all have an obligation by the Lord for that within the body. It at that point begins the judgment at the house of God. Would any still resist with also that “2 milleania” old “divisions” lance through my very brother? And if not “me”, then will we ever stop swallowing this camel to propel ourselves in strength. “No no”, one will say, “not me, I ain’t fallin’ for that crap”. Well buck-up prune, and put-em forth with “all authority” and let none “despise you”. Titus 2:15. For the “glorious” body of Christ won’t fall for less than preferring one another better, and advantaged, should we. The heavier the accusation, the heavier the care of resolve. Neither should we expect any significant headway in the world of Christendom without such. For to resist the commandment out of resentment is already promised to be without “grievous” feelings. But as kindness which is already sometimes evident here – joy, from you to me.

So if the correct preference is in place, where does that lead us? A reasoning in shambles? Some have touched on it I think. Even some who aren’t thought customarily right at times, sometimes not. Added also the attempt to digest such bulk distinguishing’s. But be it from me to say both are in the wrong. But samplings of strengths and weaknesses are on both. While some may push hard a particular envelope, is my response well equipped enough to sharpen its scriptural significance from the Word itself, or go with the flow and try and convince by a majority of utterances adding another solitary device to mount up more and more till some may dare to strain out a small victory, but most handedly, universal frustrations.

If you see it again, think twice won’t you if there may be something quite direct we might bring to the table? For instance, In one of my lines of reasoning; it’s held but not fully for turning of the other “cheek”. Counter-scripture being; it’s held but not fully not letting someone “despise” me, rather, it’s Christ life within you to guide you in the choice for to do with the Spirit as suits Him. My use of “Held” in both instances indeed are in mind so as not to be wrought in out-and-out disobedience. For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is “liberty”, and you are free in Him, aren’t you?

As far as this issue is concerned, I could easily detest my own ignorance for not spotting it sooner. It appeared so long for me as an ornament to present as the token offering for the less aggressive in Romans13. Now allow me to remind those heeding Christian authority WHEN it is Christian authority. For when it is not, and furthermore not possible to honor the King, it is not on the table to deliberate and we are left to run as one from the Sauls of the Christian church. Still confident in current running from the “power” that some of our own may be, but that is no reason for either to continue as they do and send the clear message to the world; “we do not bear with the failings of the weak from the one, and “we do not share in your leavening from the other. Who’s to make the move? Who else but the strong! Strong not in themselves or in one, but when the hand says to the foot, Ya know, it’s been a heck-of-a-long time. Would you mind helping me get this done?

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|100 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|112 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|48 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|16 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|16 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|31 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|14 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|25 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 4:15PM

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?