Reflections

2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I have been thinking about the two posts from several days ago, The Lion and the Lamb, and Living By The Sword.  These each generated significant conversation, with about 100 comments combined; in the last three months, these are the two highest-read posts.

It isn’t really the posts I have been thinking about, but the discussion.  A couple of general patterns running through my head.  Perhaps I am not remembering these precisely, but I do not want to re-live the discussions in detail, so I am not going to refer to these.  Maybe the rest of this is strawman; if so, no one need feel I am referring to his or her comments.  If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t feel a need to wear it.

The Use of Scripture

There are some 1,250 chapters and 33,000 verses in the Bible.  Use this as approximate, as the different traditions include or exclude certain of the books.  We are told that all of it is profitable.  To be profitable, these must be considered.

Ignoring these is the opposite of considering these.  To consider these suggests taking into account what is written, and addressing this within the context of the passage and in relation to other passages that touch on similar matters.  To not engage in such a manner makes it difficult to have a conversation; it certainly makes it difficult to come to any sort of understanding.

The Apostle Paul, for example, referred to Old Testament Scriptures somewhere around 200 – 300 times, maybe a bit more (the sources I found varied widely on this).  Regarding Jesus, I found the following:

In the four Gospels, 180 of the 1,800 verses that report His discourses are either Old Testament quotes or Old Testament allusions.

Both Jesus and the Apostle Paul found quoting Scripture “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”  They would build on this in their teaching.  They did not ignore Scripture and come up with something invented out of whole cloth.

Of course, there is then a bigger issue….

The Interpretation of Scripture

As if 33,000 verses aren’t enough…. To complicate matters, take a look at this picture.  It depicts the more than 63,000 cross references in the Bible.  Given that the work was done with a Lutheran pastor, I suspect it is based on the standard Protestant Bible of 66 books, etc.

 

  From the site:

The bar graph that runs along the bottom represents all of the chapters in the Bible. Books alternate in color between white and light gray. The length of each bar denotes the number of verses in the chapter. Each of the 63,779 cross references found in the Bible is depicted by a single arc - the color corresponds to the distance between the two chapters, creating a rainbow-like effect.

I have suggested before: almost every schism in the Church, between traditions, between denominations, etc., can find support somewhere in the Bible.  There are some who are convinced, for example and by proof in Scripture, that Jesus was just a man – righteous, perfect, etc.  But a man nonetheless.

I noted in one of the two above posts: I recognize all of the passages that can be brought out against my arguments.  These are in Scripture just as the verses that I chose are in Scripture.  How do we decide one view from the other? 

This isn’t so complicated on the basics.  Here, there is broad agreement – citing from C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:

The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.

The word “somehow” is where the debates and divisions begin.  There are many aspects to the debate, I suspect.  The relationship of grace and works being, I think, one of the bigger ones.  Nonetheless, it is difficult to imagine one is a Christian without accepting Lewis’s statement and without parsing it a thousand ways.  But, keep in mind: the first post-Pentecost sermon, Peter brought about three thousand into their number by preaching one thing: the death and Resurrection of Christ.  No parsing necessary.

Lewis continues:

There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper.

Here again, the devil is in the details – and, perhaps, I mean that literally (whatever one means by “literally”).  But that is a separate subject.  In any case, this was the easy stuff – no disagreement on the broad strokes thus far.

Beyond this…I have found value in the teaching that is often found in many Protestant denominations; I have found value in the worship that is found in the more traditional services.  In different ways, each has brought me understanding.  As Lewis puts it, once you are in the hallway, try out a few rooms.  Find one that fits.  For good or ill, I find value in more than one room.

Returning to the aforementioned work of Peter in that first sermon: immediately thereafter, the three-thousand were baptized, and then those who were baptized “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”  In other words: baptism, belief, and Holy Communion.

I focus on one aspect of this: they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.  And this comes to the point of this matter: interpretation.  How to interpret the Scripture?  For 2,000 years, scholars and theologians (beginning with the Apostles) have been working through the diagram above trying to work out the answer to that question.  On many of the finer points, they are all over the map.

On the point raised in my aforementioned two posts?  I think I can safely say that most major traditions and denominations support some version of self-defense, of defense of one’s family, etc.  This is the general, and broadly accepted, interpretation.

I cannot easily find any data on this: when I do a search on Christian pacifism, I get topics such as conscientious objection to war – which is not my topic.  When I look for something about Christians against self-defense, most of what I find in the first few pages are arguments that support self-defense. 

So, I will stick to my anecdotally-based view that most major traditions support self-defense.  Assuming I am right, this is not a small hurdle to overcome when one wants to take a contrary position.  I am not saying that one is wrong in doing so, but it is not a small hurdle.

Interpretation on the finer points is impossibly complicated; if there were clear statements in the Bible, consistent throughout the entirety of Scripture, we would have no debate.  For whatever reason, God chose not to make some things very simple (to say nothing of the complications arising out of translation). 

Maybe it’s because He wanted us to talk to each other, basing our discussion on the grounding of His Word.

Conclusion

Neither Jesus nor Paul ever said “defend yourself” or “don’t defend yourself.”  (No, don’t raise the point of Peter being told to put away the sword; I dealt with that last time.)  There is no such statement in Scripture in the context of this specific topic – the one raised in my earlier posts.  Unfortunately, we cannot get to an answer directly in this manner.

We do know their actions: they each died at the hands of their enemies (at least tradition tells us this of the Apostle Paul).  But their actions come within a context.  None of us fit in the context that Jesus lived while on earth.  Yes, he could have called angels to His defense.  But this was not in accord with His purpose: to die and therefore somehow make us right with God.  None of us have that purpose; it is not why we are placed here on earth.

As for Paul, he could have saved himself by renouncing his faith.  I have nowhere proposed taking this course as a means for self-defense (albeit, I don’t know if I would be as strong as him or any other martyr if that time ever comes for me; watch Silence).  He had no other means to defend himself. 

Simply put: if the force of your local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies wants you dead, you absolutely have no means by which you can physically defend yourself.  There is no option for self-defense.  Sure, you can try.  You will lose…sooner, or later.  The Apostle Paul could not physically defend himself against Rome: his choice was to renounce his faith or die.  Again, this is not the context in which I have written the earlier posts.

What am I left with?  All of Scripture, and the interpretation of same. 

What do I mean by that?  Return to the top.