The gift of the Father by sending his Son to die on the cross revealed that at the center of God's being is self-gift. God responded to human violence and sin by absorbing it nonviolently, through love on the cross.
Therefore as imitators of God's own character, we should respond to violence the same way. Yes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Quite an interesting question TT. I see what was accomplished by God absorbing our violence and sin, but what is accomplished if WE absorb anothers violence and sin? I'm struggling here with the theological/practical dilema, which should probably not exist. Theologically I like what you are saying, but the obviouse practical situation of me offering my son to some violent intruder seems pointless from my perspective. This is off the cuff though- I'm sure "the worm" can wiggle some more good stuff in here. What do you think?
Indeed an interesting sentiment Tim. The first thing that comes to my mind is the Old Testament and the many times that God did not respond with pacificism (also in the NT if you consider the Temple outrage violent). I realize the Character of God in the New Testament appears to be passive, but I also know that God never changes. I don't think we can define His character solely with Pacifism given the entire spectrum of the Bible.
I don't think Sir Timothy is saying that God is passive; he is precisely saying the opposite. That God is actively non-violent, which is quite the opposite of being passive. I would also think that the comment "God never changes" needs to be seriously qualified.
I am getting closer and closer to pacifism the older I get. But I still have enough skepticism to keep me from taking the leap. Are we supposed to be total imitators of Christ? While the Cross certainly could be understood in pacifistic ways, what do we do with the seeming silence in the Epistles and Acts regarding the topic? I know that a case for pacifism could be made from Acts as well as the Gospels, I suppose. Then there are hosts of pragmatic scenarios which make pacifism hard to maintain. Help me, Timmy.
I will try to deal with each question as succinctly as possible.
Theological/Practical dilemma: I have no easy answer for this. This includes all those "What if" scenarios people give. What I will do in a certain situation may or may not be morally correct. The issue is...what does God want/demand of me. I would like to think that if God demands something I see as impractical, I would still be obedient. Many things that Jesus commands us are not practical. Is it practical to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect? Is it practical to give all your possessions to the poor? Was it practical for the woman to pour 20,000 bucks worth of perfume on Jesus' feet?
Following Jesus is not practical by the world's standards. Saying something isn't practical is not getting to the point. If God commands it, you find a way to make work or be faithful.
Regarding the "God does not change/ Old Testament" argument. I think this argument is on way better grounds than the practical argument because it is based in looking first at the whole of scripture and then drawing your morals from that.
Okay, there are a lot of things in the Old Testament that we do not do anymore ( i.e. sacrifices, kill people because God told us to, not mix different types of cloth, etc.
In addition, Jesus himself says concerning divorce that God allowed some things in the OT that he is no longer allowing now that Jesus is here. A case could be made that there are other things God allowed back then that he is not allowing now. God's character didn't change, but he overlooked, or had patience on some things.
When Jesus came, he ushered in a new era of God's plan. God no longer worked through priests, he no longer focused totally on the people of Israel. And in Matthew 5-7 Jesus clear seems to think there are some things in the OT that need clarifying for the new age. Otherwise he wouldn't have said over and over again "You have heard that it was said ..... But I say to you"
Finally, okay, so I give you the point that God does sanction violence in the OT. Well, is there any government on earth that God is in charge of an recognized as the leader of that coutnry? I mean they had a theocracy back then guys. At the very least, military action must pass a VERY strict test for it's appropriateness.
So there are my commements.
Luke,
I believe what you and aportamann are describing as unchanging is off the mark. What you refer to as God's timelessness-not being bound by time- is basically the same thing that ancient Mediterranean philosophy/theology proposed. That is that to be divine is to be immune to time's contingencies (which would particularly include death-many early Christians tried to avoid connecting time with God aka modalism and subordinationism) Basically this means that God is not temporal. Essentially eternity is set in opposition to time; or one could say that eternity is described by the negation of time. This ultimately leads to the conception that God's being is static. He never changes. Being that God is Father, Son and HS, the triune God, it is essential that we understand God's eternality as "pure duration" rather than mere negation of time. What God transcends as Alpha and Omega is not time, or change, but having any limitations put on Him concerning the degree with which He interacts with His creation, accept those He may place upon Himself. So basically what I'm saying Luke is that because God is the great "I Am" he does indeed have the dimension of time and is Lord of it, and in it. As the entirety of Scripture points out God is historical. And this was supremely demonstrated in the incarnation, the life of Christ and His passion. So one could say that God did indeed change (not in the sense of process theology) when He became man. "The true God is not eternal because he lacks time, but because he takes time." To say that God doesn't demand our pacifism because it seems that He was a warmonger in the OT and God doesn't change needs to be SERIOUSLY qualified.
Luke,
I would first like to apologize if I came off kind of hostile it wasn't my intention. The rest of this proceeds in good humor.
I only stated that the claim that God never changes needs to be clarified- especially in light of aportamann's flippant comment that God might not ask something "new" of us because of who we think God is, not that I essentially disagree that God's is ever someone other than who He is. And I was simply responding to your words that God must not be said to change because "change requires the dimension of time which God is not constrained by". Not being constrained by time and not having the dimension of time are two separate matters. The first lets us affirm with the creeds that God is fully God and MAN. Which is to say that God has taken creation into/upon himself, that he has actually entered time. The other implies that Jesus the man could not have been fully divine because an impassive divinity cannot become something else i.e. the God-Man- or suffer i.e. the crucifixion. The discussion of time/eternity is extremely relevant to the discussion of God's impassibility. Because as you stated change has everything to do with time, and I would add that time has everything to do with eternity.
As for a didactic statement that God "changes" I refer to the birth narratives and the crucifixion accounts. Although now you have qualified change with God's character. Which is part of what I was pushing for in the first place: a fuller discussion of what one means by change.
And now it is you using clever wording to sway; Mediterranean theology and theology coming from the Mediterranean region are entirely diff. ideas. One carries with it the baggage of thousands of years of idolatry and false conceptions of the Biblical God; the other simply geographically places this story. The God of the Bible demands attention to what He has said and says about Himself apart from what any natural theologians/philosophers have said. That's the problem with Med. theo./philos. So there is something new under the sun; it is God's revelation, His Word to us.
The reason I brought it up in the first place is because even in the 21st century Christians still carry much of the same baggage. God is still seen as impassible, static and immune to time, which infringes heavily upon whom Jesus the Christ is and what he has done. This gets played out in petitionary prayer, providence, reconcilation, and our relationships with each other.
While we probably both agree in the end that God's character is faithful, in fact He is the only truly faithful one, I guess we disagree with the words that one may use to describe this and what implications are acceptable.
Grusmama,
What I would do in any situation is irrelevant to what I am suppossed to do.
The way I see it, every human being is a child of God. Is it right for you to kill one child of God to save another child of God?
I don't know the answer to your question completely, but I will say this: ANY time a human being kills another one, it is evil, it is a trajedy, it is not right.
Grus you disagree not only with me and Balthacalvin, but also the BIBLE: "if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matt. 5:39
Instead of coming up with all your fancy scenarios, give me some substantial evidence from Scripture, especially the New Testament, of when a Christian responded with violence and that God specifically approved of it.
Tim,
Earlier you said "ANY time a human being kills another one, it is evil..."
I think pacificism is great but I don't think it's practical in all circumstances in this world we live in. I respect you for being a pacifist, seriously I do. However, I don't think your comment is accurate and I think it's offensive.
I cannot and do not think it's right to say that our soilders who fought in World War II were being evil. Yes war is terrible and evil things happen during wars, but I don't God thought it was "evil" for David to slay Goliath or for the Israelites to engage in war with the Philistines and I cannot believe that He thought it was evil for the Allies to go and stop the Germans from continuing their attempt to exterminate an entire people group.
I've talked to veterans of D-Day and seen many interviews of men who fought in the U.S. military. Many of these men are God-fearing Christians who consider themselves blessed to have been part of the reason that that war ended and the Death Camps were destroyed.
I believe your statement is too broad, inaccurate, and terribly offensive and disrespectful to many of our servicemen and women.
Dan, I was using the term "evil" in that context to mean that there is something not right with the situation of combat or a human killing another human. Just like forest fires, hurricaines, earthquakes, cancer, etc. BUT unlike the natural disasters, there is a personal element involved in war. I will not proclaim judgment on the people who participate in war. Each person has to take stock of their own actions. There are some very nasty horrible and evil veterans that committed treacherous acts. There are some honest, courageous, compassionate and loyal veterans that have seen more misery than I ever have.
Grus, That a boy!
That is a good point. Now we have a bit of a delemma. On the one hand, we've got JC saying "turn the other cheek" and dying on the cross. On the other we got him crakcing a whip at everone and tossing their crap all around.
Balthacalvin,
Our minds are in sync. To use Christ's clearing of the temple as a type for our own frustrated actions is a narrow passage way. One ought to be pretty careful in treading that path. Perhaps we need/Tim really needs to distinguish what we/he means by non-violent and violent actions. Is a violent act anything that might be disagreable to one's precious psychy, a physical altercation, or maybe something all together different? What does Menno say on this Tim?
Post a Comment