Who Is My Enemy?
If enemy simply means someone I am in relationship with whom I do not like, and who works against me for my ruin (be it financial, or of reputation, or physical) because of my faith, well, then he is my enemy and I, as a known "Christian" in his life, ought to turn the other cheek as a witness against him.
What if enemy means something akin to what Jesus teaches that neighbor means? In the parable of the good Samaritan the neighbor is some complete stranger who, moreover, is in circumstances that are entirely undesirable. This seems to imply that neighbor means anyone you happen to come across who is in need. Everyone I encounter is potentially my neighbor.
I am inclined to think that enemy would work in a similar way, namely, anyone who happens to be in any form of conflict with me. I am called to LOVE them.
In Which Circumstances Does Jesus Call Us To This Kind of Love of Enemy?
While there is a strong call to love our enemies (and all men) in the new testament, it is not absent in the old testament. Most of the new testament writers were devote Jewish men who were compelled by Jesus' claim of Messiah because of their familiarity with the old testament.
How are enemies loved in the old testament?
Elisha prays for blindness to come upon a group of men who are seeking to kill him in order to render Israel defenseless. He deceives them, once blinded, into following him to the king of Israel himself. The king asks if he ought to kill the men (they were intent on killing Elisha and overthrowing Israel after all), and Elisha instructs him to feed them and let them go, which the king does. Those men never again sought conflict with Israel. (2 Kings 6:8-23)
There are several impressively cunning and witty and non-violent instances of conflict being avoided throughout the old testament histories. I do not have time to find them all right now.
Proverbs instructs us this way: "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you." (Prov 25:21-22)
It is these old testament examples that are echoed in Romans 12, (which is also a powerful call to acting as a peace-maker at all times):
Perhaps I am called to turn the other cheek and give my mantel along with my cloak when the other person knows why I am doing it. Perhaps the times where Jesus and Paul and the apostles accepted abuse is was because of their ministry, and not because there is anything absolutely wrong with defending oneself physically.
This is an intriguing argument, but ultimately not a satisfying loop hole to be at peace with all men. We act as we ought because we ought, not because another will realize it. We can never know what may come of our righteous actions. We can never be assured that someone will not later discover what motivated us to behave as a peace-maker and be humbled. We minister as a way of life, never knowing the heart of the people we encounter.
Still Un-concluded
While I have yet to discover any satisfactory biblical case against pacifism, that does not ipso facto imply that the bible does in fact demand pacifism. I think I am increasingly convinced that the bible does demand that I, as a believer and citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, act as a peace-maker at all times. What is still to be determined, in my mind, is whether there is room for physical consequences while still acting in love as a peace-maker. My experiences as a parent will weigh heavily in this aspect of the dialog.
For Dustin, I think that the crux of his non-violent position lies in his commitment to an understanding of what and where the image of God is and how it is affected by violence. I need to do more thinking on this before I can address it. Perhaps next week I will be able to present some ideas regarding that.
Further, I still have a question concerning believers who may be peace-makers in all personal encounters, but have decided to submit themselves to an authority who/which does use violence. For example, believers who choose to enlist in the armed forces. I have several friends and family who have made this decision, and I am extremely humbled by the willingness of my friends and family - and all members of the armed forces - to lay down their lives for the sake of me and my freedom. I am so grateful to live in so mild and so free a country as I do. I have experienced being stopped by armed police who pull people over on a whim in Africa, forcefully restricting travel unless they are bribed sufficiently. For all my complaints about the declining freedom in America, it is still one of the most comfortable places to live. I am grateful for the freedom to engage in discussions like this, and to present ideas which confront the status quo. It is not from lack of appreciation nor disrespect that I am engaged in this discussion. I hope that my thoughts regarding this aspect of the topic will surface better when we address pacifism's implications for the nation, church, and individual. I am curious what motivates Christian men and women to join and serve in the armed forces and be willing to kill for their country. What is the higher end(s) that justifies such violent means?
At some point we will have to address "the Hitler question", for I think it is a significant obstacle to absolute pacifism.
I am inclined to think that enemy would work in a similar way, namely, anyone who happens to be in any form of conflict with me. I am called to LOVE them.
In Which Circumstances Does Jesus Call Us To This Kind of Love of Enemy?
While there is a strong call to love our enemies (and all men) in the new testament, it is not absent in the old testament. Most of the new testament writers were devote Jewish men who were compelled by Jesus' claim of Messiah because of their familiarity with the old testament.
How are enemies loved in the old testament?
Elisha prays for blindness to come upon a group of men who are seeking to kill him in order to render Israel defenseless. He deceives them, once blinded, into following him to the king of Israel himself. The king asks if he ought to kill the men (they were intent on killing Elisha and overthrowing Israel after all), and Elisha instructs him to feed them and let them go, which the king does. Those men never again sought conflict with Israel. (2 Kings 6:8-23)
There are several impressively cunning and witty and non-violent instances of conflict being avoided throughout the old testament histories. I do not have time to find them all right now.
Proverbs instructs us this way: "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you." (Prov 25:21-22)
It is these old testament examples that are echoed in Romans 12, (which is also a powerful call to acting as a peace-maker at all times):
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY, says the Lord. BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
What is striking in the above passage is the usage of "Never" and "Any" and "All". It does no good to try to limit the definition of enemy to a personal relationship; my enemy is anyone. There is not a list of people whom I know who are my declared "enemies" (though I am certainly called to love them as well) and then an unspecified group of "bad guys" for whom the call to love and to be at peace with does not apply.
Is This Only Required When There Is An Opportunity To Be A Witness?What is striking in the above passage is the usage of "Never" and "Any" and "All". It does no good to try to limit the definition of enemy to a personal relationship; my enemy is anyone. There is not a list of people whom I know who are my declared "enemies" (though I am certainly called to love them as well) and then an unspecified group of "bad guys" for whom the call to love and to be at peace with does not apply.
Perhaps I am called to turn the other cheek and give my mantel along with my cloak when the other person knows why I am doing it. Perhaps the times where Jesus and Paul and the apostles accepted abuse is was because of their ministry, and not because there is anything absolutely wrong with defending oneself physically.
This is an intriguing argument, but ultimately not a satisfying loop hole to be at peace with all men. We act as we ought because we ought, not because another will realize it. We can never know what may come of our righteous actions. We can never be assured that someone will not later discover what motivated us to behave as a peace-maker and be humbled. We minister as a way of life, never knowing the heart of the people we encounter.
Still Un-concluded
While I have yet to discover any satisfactory biblical case against pacifism, that does not ipso facto imply that the bible does in fact demand pacifism. I think I am increasingly convinced that the bible does demand that I, as a believer and citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, act as a peace-maker at all times. What is still to be determined, in my mind, is whether there is room for physical consequences while still acting in love as a peace-maker. My experiences as a parent will weigh heavily in this aspect of the dialog.
For Dustin, I think that the crux of his non-violent position lies in his commitment to an understanding of what and where the image of God is and how it is affected by violence. I need to do more thinking on this before I can address it. Perhaps next week I will be able to present some ideas regarding that.
Further, I still have a question concerning believers who may be peace-makers in all personal encounters, but have decided to submit themselves to an authority who/which does use violence. For example, believers who choose to enlist in the armed forces. I have several friends and family who have made this decision, and I am extremely humbled by the willingness of my friends and family - and all members of the armed forces - to lay down their lives for the sake of me and my freedom. I am so grateful to live in so mild and so free a country as I do. I have experienced being stopped by armed police who pull people over on a whim in Africa, forcefully restricting travel unless they are bribed sufficiently. For all my complaints about the declining freedom in America, it is still one of the most comfortable places to live. I am grateful for the freedom to engage in discussions like this, and to present ideas which confront the status quo. It is not from lack of appreciation nor disrespect that I am engaged in this discussion. I hope that my thoughts regarding this aspect of the topic will surface better when we address pacifism's implications for the nation, church, and individual. I am curious what motivates Christian men and women to join and serve in the armed forces and be willing to kill for their country. What is the higher end(s) that justifies such violent means?
At some point we will have to address "the Hitler question", for I think it is a significant obstacle to absolute pacifism.
Marianne,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your thoughts.
I especially understand your grappling with the question of chosen military service. I know that I have come to a conclusion on the matter, which is directly related to my own view of the teachings of scripture. In light of the message of Jesus about the kingdom of God being here and now, in addition to seeing what marks that kingdom, I can come to no other conclusion, and still be true to my beliefs, than to say that military service is incompatible with my beliefs. I hope you don't feel that is an attack of your beliefs or the decisions of your family members to serve. This is just where I'm at, and I have found no other way to think based on my beliefs about the teachings of Jesus than this position. Does that make sense?
Also, I am very interested in discussing the "Hitler question" with you, however I may need a little more insight into what you might like to tackle. Maybe that can be our "final" post. What do you think?
Again I appreciate your comments, Marianne, and the way your mind reasons. I will keep thinking about this, too.
ReplyDeleteThe quote from Romans 12 looks like it emphasizes a command not to take vengeance, never to pay back evil for evil. Perhaps getting even is a different activity from defending oneself or one's family or country. But I can imagine there being times when you can't know the motives behind a war or other conflict. (Our current war comes to mind.) Even in dealing with a friend, it can be really hard to discern whether something I've said or done that ends up hurting the other person was my attempt to get even or simply a rational defense. Maybe that doesn't speak to your dialog here. But I think taking action amid many types of conflict involves risk. I don't know if pacifism speaks to that, to making a choice and acting on it while understanding I may be wrong and may need at some point to seek forgiveness and mercy.
Thank you both for such good interaction. I plan to have time to respond better tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteDustin,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I am sorry I have not responded before now.
I understand the conclusions you have come to. The reason I wrote so much there was, in part, because I am willing to consider coming to the same conclusion. I want to make clear to my friends and family that their sacrifice and service is not something I take lightly. Nor do I fail to realize how military accomplishments for American freedom is a large part of the reason you and I are even able to engage in this dialog.
I suppose I just mean that I would like for us to address pacifism in the light of colossal evil. For example, if we are choosing pacifism out of respect for human life and dignity, what about WW2, when one man really was obliterating so much life. Is there a time to act "counter principle" because in reality there is a higher principle? If Bonhoffer himself debated this, it seems worth examining.
Yes, a final post on that (including perhaps other common Christian objections to Pacifism) should fit nicely.
Thank you again for entering this dialog with me.
Deanna,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for being an active part of this dialog. I have really appreciated your comments.
Yes, the Roman's passage has left me with much to mull over this past week as well. Especially as the next verses talk about submitting to one's own government. How discerning we must be to act as a citizen on one country, while submitting to the government of another. I think that it is still fitting with "being at peace with all men". We are not (yet) at open war with the world. We are still to strive to be at peace even with governments who are ultimately working against the Kingdom we serve. I have more thinking to do about this.
You are right. It is so hard to figure our own hearts out, as they themselves are so divided wrestling with the sinful nature. It seems all of our actions (and inactions) must be done in fear and trembling, with a ready heart to seek the forgiveness and mercy you mentioned.