God, War & The Cross...

This blog is in response to a few other bogs I've read recently, and some things I've been pondering for a while.

Sven and Jonny both have suggested that if you're a Christian you can't possibly support war. They also suggest that the only solution to an act of aggression is non-violence.

While I am not as intelligent as either of them. or as good with words, I will attempt my own reasoning. A few months ago, I would have actually supported the view that they hold, but find myself now after much pondering disagreeing with them wholeheartedly.

I would like to say a few things before I start!

1. I always get alarmed when I see articles starting with "why christians should/should not" etc... because it gives the impression that there is no variety of beliefs within christianity, it gives no scope for differing viewpoints and suggests that being "christian" is about holding one view, which I think is a bit of a dangerous assumption to make!! (obviously apart from certain fundamental beliefs like Jesus as the Son of God/The Trinity, etc, etc...) (Sven/Jonny take note, if you're suggesting this, you're as gulity of 'fundamentalism' if only in your view of this one issue as the christians you make fun of for theirs!!)
2. The Bible is a very complicated book, and it's very easy to read verses out of context and very quickly "summarize" a passage without looking in detail as to it's context, to pertain it's meaning.

That said, here goes:

God is not automatically against the taking of life. If you look at your Old Testament history, God seems to command the Israelites at certain points while taking their promised land, to slaughter whole villages and tribes, in some passages, women children and animals, like a sort of ethnic cleansing.

I understand that some theologians talk about the idea of "progressive revelation", the idea that God was revealing himself stage by stage to his people, and they may have thought that Yahweh wanted these things dome, but that he didn't actually command them to kill in His name, they just "thought" that He did, because they didn't know Him very well, and they projected onto Yahweh their own idea of what He would act like, e.g. other 'gods' around them at the time acted like that, so why shouldn't Yahweh?

The problem with this is, you're starting to question the accuracy of the reporting in the Bible. Once you start to question this passage or that passage because it doesn't fit with your views, why couldn't you question the interpretation of the Israelites throughout the whole Old Testament? Either the text is trustworthy or it is not.

If you look at the 6th Commandment, God makes a distinction in his wording. A common misconception is that the commandment says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It doesn't. What it actually says in Hebrew, is "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Though I am no Hebrew expert, I cheated and looked it up, and the word specifically means "to murder", i.e. it doesn't say not to kill par se.

This obviously gives us a difficulty, how do we justify this? If we use this approach however, we're making a mistake. The whole basis of the Ten Commandments (as shown in the first one) was to show that God is Sovereign, is Holy, and has no equal. He does not need to jusify Himself. To understand some of these passages, we need to understand the Holiness of God not as a characteristic, e.g. as a part of His Character, but rather as a physical (when God is spoken of in a physical way) representation of His Otherness, a quality of His Presence. Elijah talks about his vision of God's Holiness, and it terrifies him, and without a word spoken by God, Elijah immediately falls facedown and realises his own sinfulness and unworthiness in comparison, such is the greatness of God's Presence.

I still struggle with these ideas, but it has helped me some way to understand that as Isaiah says "your ways are not my ways, says the Lord".

Jesus, in his teaching, did teach that we must refute evil with good yes, but, if you accept that the apostles were passing on the message of Jesus after his ascension too, then Paul talks about authorities that are put in place by God. (Romans) Paul seems to suggest that governments are given a special authority from God to rule, and this can include the authority to punish the wrongdoer as seems right under authority from God himself.

If you take the idea of Situation Ethics, sometimes the loving thing to do is to show a love based on tough decisions and circumstances.

e.g. if you were married, and had a child, and an armed man came into your house, would you simply resist a confrontation, or would you try and stop that man? Surely to resist, is not showing love, as it would result in not only your death, but more importantly the death of your wife and child. Simply to stand in the way would achieve nothing, as the man would kill both yourself and your wife and child. The lesser of two evils would be to (if neccesary) kill the man who is attempting to endanger your wife and child. Simply to do nothing, would not be showing love, or loving your neighbour (your wife and child) as yourself. To do nothing on your own behalf, is your own decision, yes, but to do nothing on their behalf endangers them. However I study it, I can not see anyway past this argument.

If you study the passages carefully, Jesus was nopt simply advocating a passive resistance to evil. The meaning we take from these passages today would have been heard completely differently to those of the original hearers. To carry a coat two miles, would have put the soldier who forced you to carry it one mile anyway, in a difficult position. If his superior found out he'd apparently forced someone to carry his pack two miles, he would have been court-marshalled. Similarly, when Jesus talks about giving someone your shirt, he was reffering to a practise in the courts at the time of debtors giving up outer clothing in the event of paying a debt. When jesus said give them your shirt too, he was actually suggesting the inner garment, i.e. saying if you want it, take it all, and going naked out of the court!!! This would result, not just embarrassment for the person who's clothes they were, but perceived shame on the court for apparently enforcing such a harsh decision!!!

The Bible is always more interesting and complicated than you think, and it's dangerous to suggest that it's simple!!!

I will write on these issues more after I come back from Church as I'm now late!!!