Christian Violence

[McCulloch]

Is that why Christians since St. Augustine have not ever really agreed with each other about Jesus' teachings about violence?

... t is probably because of frustration for evil and violence within so many. But if you use the words of Jesus, there seems to be little fighting one can do in his name. Actually I can't see any. In that I think that the Quakers got it right. You seem to be saying that some Muslims and some atheists are quite as good as other Muslims and atheists. Seems like every human has the same weakness to me. I hope the good ones keep pointing out how to be nice to the bad ones. We Christians do it as a matter of fact, day in and day out. Look at Bush's loudest enemies in the US. Most claim they want their Christianity back. Wierd but true. But there is no jihad in the New Testament anywhere and c'mon jihad does mean war on infidels. That is a fact. [Are] there any wars attributed to Christians fighting to spread Christianity in the last hundred or so years? Islam is still at it.

Which is the correct Christian position? Jesus taught very plainly about violence and the correct reaction to it. Some Christian sects reject violence as a solution to interpersonal or international problems.
On the other hand the practice of many calling themselves Christian involve the practice of war. Augustine and many Christian theologians since have justified violence under certain circumstances. His restrictions are largely ignored by modern Christian soldiers. The same God that the Christians worship appears to have ordered genocide in order that his chosen people could have a homeland.

Question for debate, "Which is the authentic Christian teaching? Just war or Turn the other cheek?"

[micatala]

This could be a really good topic. Thanks M.

Here are my initial thoughts.

If we were to perfectly follow Jesus' teachings and example, we would not fight, murder, war, etc.

Now, to digress a bit, in the Old Testament, the Mosaic law allowed a husband to divorce his wife. In the NT, Jesus said the only reason for this was 'the hardness of the hearts' of the Israelites. God allowed divorce, it seems, sort of as an acknowledgment of and allowance for the imperfection of his followers.

One might make a similar case in the present circumstance. No, we should not go to war and commit violence. However, because we are imperfect and live in an imperfect world, God will acknowledge this and allow us to, in our own free will, decide what we should do in a given situation.

So, my initial answer is that 'turn the other cheek' is the true Christian teaching, but that God understands the choice to follow this teaching can be extremely difficult, so much so that he will forgive us should we not follow it, especially if we have done all we can to avoid practicing violence.

Now, whether this 'allowance' can be developed into a legitimate 'just war theory' that can be applied in numerous and changing circumstances in another question. There is certainly a danger of a 'slippery slope' where we apply the theory in more and more situations that are really less and less justified, taking us further away from the ideal we are supposed to follow.

[youngborean]

There does seem to be a potential understanding of war in Christ's eyes as represented in the NT.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I don't believe that this is to say that one should go out and kill as a missionary technique, but that Christians eventually would have to defend their beliefs with their lives. This to me would be Chirst recognizing the brutual reality of humans. This doesn't make war just, but I think Jesus is recognizing that if your life is threatened, many Christians will try to defend themselves. However, he recognizes the end of anyone that goes this down this path.

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

In other words, even if you try this route to escape persecution, you will inevitably get caught up in violence. So I think from NT ethics, a Christian is allowed to defend themselves with force, but there is certainly no spiritual gain that they will recieve from it. So there would only be a just war in human terms (self-defence), but it would gain nothing in God's eyes.

[Tilia]

There does seem to be a potential understanding of war in Christ's eyes as represented in the NT.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If we consider this statement in context, we see that Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically. When he had earlier sent disciples ahead, in advance of his own ministry, he had told them: "Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you." But the situation was different now. Jesus was about to be crucified, and the disciples would be bringing healing to people rather less than taking the gospel, which Jesus had said would divide them. The reference to buying a sword was to emphasise danger, not to physical arming with material weapons. We see this development and the need for a different attitude in the following passage:

'Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me." 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 fulfilment." (Luke 22:34-37 NIV)

The disciples, as they so often had done before, took Jesus literally:

'The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.' (Luke 22:38 NIV)

Now did Jesus mean, "Yes, two swords will suffice for what is about to happen"? That could not be so; and neither could it apply if the disciples were to defend themselves with weapons. Jesus meant, "Enough of that sort of talk."

'When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.' (Luke 22:49-51 NIV)

So Jesus forbade all violence done in his name, at least until his return. That does not mean that all violence is sinful. He praised the faith of a Roman soldier, and acknowledged the right of soldiers to maintain law and order. The divine violence of the previous dispensation was over, thenceforward to act as a permanent warning of much greater danger of sin; not just the obvious idolatries and profanities of Canaanites, but of any sin.

'"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."' (Matt 5:39-45)

'Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.' (Eph 6:17 NIV)

[trencacloscas]

What does history say? Before the Edict of Milan (317 C.E.), Christians refused to join the army and go to war. After the Edict (who guaranteed the freedom of cult and put Christianism as a sort of official religion of the state along with the Council of Nicaea), Christians join massively to the Roman army and embarked into war to evangelize instigated by their priests. Since the "teachings" of Jesus are not clear at all about the subject, they managed the situation with absolute hypocrisy.

[Lotan]

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If we consider this statement in context, we see that Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically.

...<<suppressing gag reflex>>...
"Must have"? Talk about begging the question! There's absolutely nothing metaphorical about that passage, nor is there anything about the context that suggests otherwise.

The disciples, as they so often had done before, took Jesus literally:

'The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.' (Luke 22:38 NIV)

Now did Jesus mean, "Yes, two swords will suffice for what is about to happen"? That could not be so; and neither could it apply if the disciples were to defend themselves with weapons. Jesus meant, "Enough of that sort of talk."

...emphasis mine...
It's a good thing that we have you to explain what Jesus '"meant" otherwise we might be tempted to read this text in an unambiguous, straightforward manner.
Pity poor Harvard linguist, translator, and Divinity School graduate, Dr. John Hinton Ph.D. He obviously lacks your keen understanding. In his view your interpretation is...
"...so completely dumb that it looks like it came out of a commentary entitled A Dummy’s Guide to Interpreting the Bible."
Even worse, he goes on to say...
"It makes an obvious mockery of the meaning of the verse, and even a child can see that it is a non sequitur, whether or not he knows what non sequitur means."
That's not good. Apparently, he's trying to pass off this opinion based on his extensive knowledge of the Greek language or something...
"Nevertheless, it is fun to look at the Greek here. The Greek word is hikanos, or ikanos, if you want to pronounce it as the modern Greeks would. The word means enough or sufficient. The meanings provided by Liddell Scott's Greek Dictionary are: sufficient, adequate, enough, and 2. sufficient, satisfactory. In Koine Greek, it also may mean much, many, very much in the same way that the words enough and plenty are sometimes used interchangeably.
In English we may also use the word 'enough' as an exclamation meaning "Stop it!" or "No more!" It has no such meaning in Greek. It is only an adjective."

So Jesus forbade all violence done in his name, at least until his return.

So why were his disciples running around with swords in the first place?

[1John2_26]

Defense. The passage about arming with a couple of swords is common sense. Unless, you mythologize the New Testament. That part of Judea was filled with robbers and thieves stalking people walking the trails. So with all respect to Tilla, your opinion is not the one I see in context. Lotan, has it correct I believe. And remember a sword in hand is a deterrant to violence every bit as much as it is a violent thing in and of itself.

And in defense of ones life? The following looks like a good position on reality. Though, I don't know about war as in war of conquest.

There does seem to be a potential understanding of war in Christ's eyes as represented in the NT.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I don't believe that this is to say that one should go out and kill as a missionary technique, but that Christians eventually would have to defend their beliefs with their lives. This to me would be Chirst recognizing the brutual reality of humans. This doesn't make war just, but I think Jesus is recognizing that if your life is threatened, many Christians will try to defend themselves. However, he recognizes the end of anyone that goes this down this path.

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

In other words, even if you try this route to escape persecution, you will inevitably get caught up in violence. So I think from NT ethics, a Christian is allowed to defend themselves with force, but there is certainly no spiritual gain that they will recieve from it. So there would only be a just war in human terms (self-defence), but it would gain nothing in God's eyes.

Look at St. Augustine's position as well.

Where did just war theory originate?
The first Christian thinker to write extensively about the subject was St. Augustine of Hippo. For Augustine, war was a logical extension of the act of governance. And governance itself was, as St. Paul wrote in Romans 13.1-7, ordained by God.

This, however, doesn't mean that all wars are morally justifiable. Augustine wrote, "It makes a great difference by which causes and under which authorities men undertake the wars that must be waged." This led him to describe the conditions under which war could be waged justly .

What does just war require?
For Augustine, the first requirement was proper authority. As he put it, "The natural order, which is suited to the peace of moral things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader." The leader Augustine had in mind was one whom God had entrusted with the responsibility of governance. In his time, this was the emperor. Later, it would be kings and princes. Today, it's our elected leadership. These people are answerable to God for the welfare of their states in a way that no private citizen is.

Proper authority is not the only requirement. For Augustine, proper cause, the reasons for which we go to war, was as important as who authorized the action. He specifically ruled out as justifications for war such causes as "[t]he desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, [and] the lust for dominating." Augustine saw war as a tragic necessity and we should keep in mind his admonition to "[l]et necessity slay the warring foe, not your will."

A better thread would be "when is enough enough?" As society looks right now, a civil war or a real armed conflict could really happen. Christians have shown a great tolerance in the western world for a lot of things to be allowed that are ravaging their familes and churches themselves. There is only a matter of time before "enough is enough." That is also just human nature. Remember Jesus whipping out of the Temple a bunch of insulting reprobates?

[Tilia]

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If we consider this statement in context, we see that Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically.

...<<suppressing gag reflex>>...
"Must have"? Talk about begging the question! There's absolutely nothing metaphorical about that passage, nor is there anything about the context that suggests otherwise.

So what is the point of all this, Lotan? What sort of violence is permitted in Christianity?

[Lotan]

So what is the point of all this, Lotan?

I felt that your apologetic fantasy might not be the best way to approach the question, especially with solid scholarship just lying around going to waste.

What sort of violence is permitted in Christianity?

Why don't you tell us? Aren't you an expert on the subject of what Jesus really 'meant'?

[Tilia]

So what is the point of all this, Lotan?

I felt that your apologetic fantasy might not be the best way to approach the question, especially with solid scholarship just lying around going to waste.

So what about the scholars who think that this is metaphor? There are even some who believe that the word 'sword ' is a later interpolation. Now that should surely appeal to you.

What sort of violence is permitted in Christianity?

Why don't you tell us?

I can't tell you what you think, can I? I don't think that Christianity allows for any sort of violence other than that used to enforce law and order. So what is your view on Christian violence?

Or do you post against Tilia on principle!