Pages

Monday, December 14, 2020

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.

19 comments:

  1. I think you've missed the first time scripture lays out the principle of self defense.

    God destroyed the pre flood world because it was 'filled with violence'. When Noah gets off the ark God makes a covenant with 'all creation'. We are familiar with the rainbow and the promise not to flood again, but this covenant also includes something related to violence and self defense.

    This is the first principle of violence and both the Law of Moses and Jesus build on this principle.

    5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

    6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
    by man shall his blood be shed,
    for God made man in his own image.

    Genesis 9:5-6

    There are two killings in this passage, and only one murder. The first killing is a murder, and the person who is the first aggressor is morally in the wrong.

    The second killing is morally justified and is an act of justice.

    This is the first principle of the nonaggression principle. Don't start the fight. It first appears in scripture after the flood, as part of the Noahic Covenant.

    I honestly haven't seen many Christians who speak on this topic or libertarians go all the way back to this passage. They go back to the killing of the thief in the law of Moses. This is the first principle. Further, Jesus does not overturn this, as he was referencing this when he said the apostles need a sword before going to the garden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Genesis 14 is another relevant passage. Not exactly self-defense but the example goes even further than self-defense.

      Abram goes to war with several kings to rescue Lot from them. He then receives a blessing. I would also point to the whole book of Ruth where the nation of Israel protects itself against an immoral law enacted by Haman.

      I don't see anything explicit in the NT that would indicate things work differently now. Implicitly, the apostles and then churches are never depicted as defending themselves against theft and violence from the state and religious opponents. But nothing says they couldn't have. It is puzzling to me.

      Delete
    2. RMB, you also make good points - points that open a window about why I didn't include certain passages.

      You (and others here) will recall several months ago when I dove into the parts of the Old Testament that we don't like - the genocidal-like commands given by God, etc.

      I purposely avoided those in my recent posts on this topic of self-defense, primarily because I did not feel these necessary to make the point but also because I felt it would set the conversation off on a tangent. Not that I am disagreeing with your pointing these out: they must be considered in this discussion.

      It is the same God, Old and New Testament. It is the same God that was made manifest in human form.

      Now, I know that this opens up a whole new can of worms. I won't get into these. But these verses exist, and all Scripture "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

      Delete
    3. For clarification, the 2 passages I mentioned are not genocidal in nature. They both refer to defense of self or family, in a more or less strict context.

      I have no questions why you didn't include certain passages. There are too many to include all in one place. You have to pick which is most relevant to what you are trying to communicate. You are doing a good job in my opinion.

      Delete
    4. I second RMB. Bionic these are the best discussions I've ever had concerning the intersection of religion and society.

      Delete
    5. Thank you, ATL. This entire journey has been a fulfilling one for me.

      Delete
  2. "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." - Bionic

    I don't see anything wrong with this. I see us all as one Church with different factions with varying historical and scriptural disagreements.

    As for my further take on the issue of self-defense, I defer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (not entirely scripture, but based on 2000 years of wisdom and tradition):

    2242 "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49"

    Pretty clear here. God is King and sovereign. Obey authorities in so far as they obey God's law. Resistance to un-Godly authority is justified.

    "When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50"

    When facing tyranny, consider what is best for the common good. Is it better to violently rebel and get your whole community killed? Or is it better to quietly suffer persecution which the community can survive and build support for better days ahead?

    2243 "Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution."

    Sounds like good advice to me. I think the above can be transposed onto the individual when it comes to self defense or defense of another against an attacker. In this case, where no other lives are at stake other than yours or the victim's I think #4 can be omitted based on John 15:13.

    Catechism references:

    48 Matthew 22:21
    49 Acts 5:29
    50 GS 74-5 (Gaudium et spes, 1965)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATL,

      "4) there is well-founded hope of success"

      Define success, right? Here, in this life? Or the other? Naturally? Spiritually? Now? For posterity?

      Isn't that always the rub with rules? Definition of our words/concepts?

      Delete
    2. Yes. To put this in libertarian terms, the ideas of property, imminent, threat, aggression, restitution, and punishment are abstract without a specific tradition or culture to define them and a system of courts or legal associations to actually resolve disputes with them.

      Rules are not enough. There needs to be consensus among the people in a legal/political community on what the rules actually mean. How that consensus is achieved is the art of politics I suppose. I would rank them like this (from worst to best): dictatorship < democracy < monarchy < aristocracy < kingship < private law confederation.

      Delete
  3. BM: 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.

    Mike: Of course this statement is false.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”
    (Matt. 5:38–41 ESV)

    “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
    (Rom. 12:17–21 ESV)

    Also, the underlying premise of your article seems defective also. It is the Argumentum ad populum, or consensus fallacy. It is the typical argument of the teen and preteen, “But mom, all my friends are...”.

    “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”
    (Matt. 7:13 ESV)

    The herd is regularly wrong. You would be better to look at what it is doing, and look for another path.

    BM: “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.”

    “And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”
    (Luke 9:23-24 ESV)

    “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”
    (John 12:24–25 ESV)

    But what if that, precisely, is the purpose of His body?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, perhaps I was a bit sloppy with my meaning. It is clear that, looking at all of Scripture and all of Jesus's teaching, there is ambiguity - at best - on this topic.

      "It is the typical argument of the teen and preteen..."

      You are done on this topic.

      Delete
    2. Mike,

      Insulting your host will eventually earn you the boot. Employing some basic manners goes a long way with most people I've found, but that's just my humble observation.

      Delete
    3. And yet, none of the verses Mike quotes contradicts the idea that self-defense is acceptable in God's eyes. None of those are absolute statements on the subject and it leaves out many relevant verses.

      There is a teaching in the NT of sacrificing and suffering and doing everything you can to maintain peace. We are not to be quick to anger and violence. But there is never a prohibition to protecting yourself. I think because based on the specific situation you find yourself in, it can be correct behavior to do either. It isn't binary.

      Delete
  4. John 10
    Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
    (snip)
    12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.

    ====

    The passages are dealing with the teaching that Jesus is the Good Shepard. But, remember, they lesson can only be understood based on the common understanding of the story to drive the lesson. In Jesus case, Jesus will lay down His life to later pick it up again to defeat death.

    What exactly a sheperd is expected to do when facing a wolf, letting the wolf kill the sheperd? Then what? The sheperd, if need be, will kill the wolf to protect the sheep.

    ====

    1 Samuel 17

    (snip)
    31 When the words that David spoke were heard, they informed [u]Saul, and he [v]sent for him. 32 And David said to Saul, “May no one’s heart fail on account of him; your servant will go and fight this Philistine!” 33 But Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight him; for you are only a youth, while he has been a warrior since his youth.” 34 But David said to Saul, “Your servant was tending his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a sheep from the flock, 35 I went out after it and [w]attacked it, and rescued the sheep from its mouth; and when it rose up against me, I grabbed it by its mane and struck it and killed it. 36 Your servant has [x]killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God.” 37 And David said, “The Lord who saved me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear, He will save me from the hand of this Philistine.” So Saul said to David, “Go, and may the Lord be with you.”
    (snip)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, Jaime, we must cut these part out of the Bible. They do not fit with the narrative.

      ;-()

      At minimum, it would be nice to hear that the answer is not absolute or unequivocal. That there is a reason this debate has continued for 2000 years. We cannot even get this....

      Delete
    2. I do not think there is an absolute answer. I don't believe that each person is to act the same way in regards to defense/protection across all situations.

      Some applications of Scripture will come down to the unique aspects of individual circumstance. Sometimes a different response may be appropriate in very similar circumstances. Maybe this is where I get a little mystical. Holy Spirit applies Scripture to our hearts in the moment sometimes. We also have different personalities and therefore strengths/weaknesses which God may be wanting to use in a specific way in the moment.

      I don't think this should produce indecision or lack of confidence. We should all pursue what we think God is teaching us in Scripture and acting out of that as the individual He made us to be. The guard rails for our behavior are the more clear areas of Scriptures where God says what is sin and/or unacceptable.

      Where you have mentioned differences in Biblical interpretation which is true, I think the real differences lie in Biblical application. We can have the same or similar interpretations and still apply things differently while being obedient to God.

      Delete
    3. RMB,

      I find a lot to agree with in what you said right here.

      Delete