In thinking through the discussion after yesterday's sermon, I have concluded that I was UNCLEAR in something I said:
In response to a comment related to self defense when attacked, I quickly noted that the right to self defense has been part of the Christian moral tradition. While technically and historically correct, my answer did not focus enough on what is quite clear: That in the teachings of JESUS, enunciated in ' The Sermon on the Mount ( MT: 5-7), it is pretty hard to argue against the position that Jesus Himself was a pacifist. What the tradition takes into account is that we as individual moral agents have to make concrete judgments based on the application of moral principles.
HOWEVER................that TECHNICAL FACT has been used all too facilely and glibly and RUNS AWAY FROM the importance of confronting WHAT JESUS REALLY THOUGHT. It was NOT my intention to do that.
PB
13 comments:
Would a pacifist physically attack money changers in the temple court with a whip, overturn their tables, and initiate such a disturbance as Jesus did? How would you define a pacifist?
David
I think that these actions show us the complexity of the personna of Jesus. At that time in history the Temple was corrupt- as have been many Christian churches throughout history. It was a money making enterprise and had very little to do with being a house of worship for the GOD of Israel. The actions of these people were idolatrous, blasphemous. In this instance Jesus acted in the way of a prophet. He spoke truth to power even if it was the power of a religious institution (political too. Yet I do strongly believe he was a pacifist. Who wanted people to know the real GOD as justice, mercy love. No one ever said a pacifist couldn't get angry or show anger especially in the face of injustice. This scene only makes me love Jesus more!
Also please don't interpret this in any way as anti Catholicism as there are certainly examples of this in some "protestant" churches too but... on a recent trip to Rome and the Vatican- which I admire because of it's exquisite collection of art- I thought. Gee I wonder what Jesus would think of all of this?
Also sometimes.... I think... we have made Jesus himself into an idol... rather than as a way of knowing GOD. What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
An idol is anything that people value above God. Because Jesus is God, I don't know that it is possible to have Jesus as an idol; it sounds like a self-defeating proposition to me.
A pacifist, according to Webster, is someone who is opposed to the use of force in any circumstance. Did Jesus use force? You be the judge: "And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;" John 2:15 (NASB). In fact, God used force throughout the Old Testament to exact His will and exercise His perfect judgment. God can use force because He is our sovereign God. To suggest that God/Jesus is a pacifist is factually wrong.
David
I tend to hope that our GOD is a merciful GOD above all.
By the term idolize. I suppose I mean worship of the "figure" of Jesus without any change in heart or behavior. I think Jesus intent was to bring about a change in heart, a new and radical way of seeing and being in the world. A way of apporaching the self and others through the lens of compassion, mercy and love. To live a life of gratitude, abundance and to strive to allow the light of GOD to shine through .
To get back to the pacifist issue. I believe that GOD leads us towards peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately in this world that path may also be fraught with difficulty and hardship and as we see in the Bible GOD also mysteriously works through and in the midst of war and discord. I suspect that to label either GOD or Jesus as a "pacifist" is far too limiting.
While our GOD may be sovergn and all powerful I belive the story of the flood tries to illustrate a portrait of GOD whose true and greatest power in this world and in our lives lies primarily in mercy over wrath. I think that is the point of Jesus as well. That is the "good news" of the gospel. That is why we should all rejoice!
Donna
Pacifism has to do with violence against persons. If one wants to take issue with that definition, I'm willing to state that it is hard to make an argument that Jesus was anything but nonviolent toward PERSONS....
Pacifistic thinkers usually distinguish violence agianst people with violence against things as exemplified by Jesus in the passage so accurately cited---
PB
I agree with the comment re the ostentaciousness observed at the Vatican, but I'd ask Protestants to be honest about such 'sacred objects' as well polished silverware, Communion plates, and candlesticks.....
PB
The New Testament is clear: Jesus did not resist violence toward HIM w/ violence----nor did He teach in favor of violent resistance to PERSONS...
The BROAD definition of pacifism does not take into account the distinction between violence toward persons and that toward property.....
Bob,
Can you rely on a literal interpretation of what the New Testament writer's may have been trying to convey about Jesus' teachings? You do realize of course the cultural distinctions between the USA today and the Middle East 1900 years ago. Do you trust what the Bible states about Christ?
David
My comment on other post was meant for this one...sorry............
Post a Comment