Today, a new chapter in "Hurricane River" under the same name in website. It is "Derek," after "Devil's Choice."
The last blog ended on the question - who dare's not eat the apple first? In this case, I was thinking about self-defense in a hard world, something that has become increasingly relevant with the rise of ISIS and violent Muslim fundamentalism. Among Christians, however, it has long been a problem. There is nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus tells us to fight back. Rather, we are to turn the other cheek. This seems pretty clear, and yet we know that with such passivity, one's world would very quickly become "not of this world." I have read examples of Quakers laying down their arms, only to be slaughtered by attacking Indians in old Pennsylvania, and of a Buddhist village (the same passivity preached in Buddhism) exterminated because it would not fight off an invasion. In the movie "Black Robe" (based on fact), a Jesuit priest manages to convert an Indian tribe in Quebec - with that tribe being wiped out by their traditional enemies within a few years. Pacifism works in some cases, but not in many or most instances of invasion. For every Ghandi or MLK victory are several defeats of the weaker by the stronger. Genghis Khan would find such passivity a laugh riot.
For that reason, most Christian sects have delineated the "Just War," where a non-violent nation is allowed - or even compelled - to actively fight "evil." However, as we have seen in some of the Gulf wars, what is evil and a threat is often debatable.
During the last two nights, a TV opinion show had representatives of both factors - the first set, a Catholic priest and a Rabbi arguing for the active engagement of evil, and the second, a Quaker and a minister from the group, "Sojourners." The host, an engagement type of guy, gave little room for the pacifist argument, but it did indeed seem shallow, considering the topic concerned stopping ISIS. The brunt was: get the nearby Muslim countries and their populace to condemn the group. This would stop recruitment and dry the movement up, without the need for the use of force. In all fairness, I do not see that working, at least not fast enough. With such lack of push-back, this ruthless group would have its Caliphate as fast as one can say, "Adolf Hitler."
Still, there is no Holy Voice to condone violence against violence in the New Testament. In fact, everything points to martyrdom, including the Crucifixion. It did work to change the Roman Empire from within, but the empire only continued, and poorly at that, with renewed violence "in the name of Christ." This would not have stopped a powerful movement from without.
This blog will not untie a knot that has been fumbled with for centuries. In the aforementioned Buddhist village, the villagers knew that they would be wiped out. It was their opinion that it would be better to go to eternity with a cleaner karma than to live for a few more years - and their children's, and their children's children's years - on this earthly plain. Is that what Christ was demanding? There are arguments to be made in favor of this, but the reality of it is something else. We would, indeed, become slaves or simply be killed. The bite of the apple would be the idea that we deserve to live at the expense of other's lives, even if those others were threatening us. Are we not one? Is this not the breaking of the second greatest of divine laws, to treat others as we would like to be treated (the first is to love God with all one's heart)? Shouldn't we simply turn the other cheek?
I can see the alternative arguments - that we are doing the world good by stopping evil, that we are protecting what life God has given us in natural defense and so on, but these are arguments. On the face of it, on the facts of the Gospel, none of them seem to fly. And in the end, it seems to all come down to that one phrase: who is brave - or foolish - enough to refuse the bite of the apple? FK
The last blog ended on the question - who dare's not eat the apple first? In this case, I was thinking about self-defense in a hard world, something that has become increasingly relevant with the rise of ISIS and violent Muslim fundamentalism. Among Christians, however, it has long been a problem. There is nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus tells us to fight back. Rather, we are to turn the other cheek. This seems pretty clear, and yet we know that with such passivity, one's world would very quickly become "not of this world." I have read examples of Quakers laying down their arms, only to be slaughtered by attacking Indians in old Pennsylvania, and of a Buddhist village (the same passivity preached in Buddhism) exterminated because it would not fight off an invasion. In the movie "Black Robe" (based on fact), a Jesuit priest manages to convert an Indian tribe in Quebec - with that tribe being wiped out by their traditional enemies within a few years. Pacifism works in some cases, but not in many or most instances of invasion. For every Ghandi or MLK victory are several defeats of the weaker by the stronger. Genghis Khan would find such passivity a laugh riot.
For that reason, most Christian sects have delineated the "Just War," where a non-violent nation is allowed - or even compelled - to actively fight "evil." However, as we have seen in some of the Gulf wars, what is evil and a threat is often debatable.
During the last two nights, a TV opinion show had representatives of both factors - the first set, a Catholic priest and a Rabbi arguing for the active engagement of evil, and the second, a Quaker and a minister from the group, "Sojourners." The host, an engagement type of guy, gave little room for the pacifist argument, but it did indeed seem shallow, considering the topic concerned stopping ISIS. The brunt was: get the nearby Muslim countries and their populace to condemn the group. This would stop recruitment and dry the movement up, without the need for the use of force. In all fairness, I do not see that working, at least not fast enough. With such lack of push-back, this ruthless group would have its Caliphate as fast as one can say, "Adolf Hitler."
Still, there is no Holy Voice to condone violence against violence in the New Testament. In fact, everything points to martyrdom, including the Crucifixion. It did work to change the Roman Empire from within, but the empire only continued, and poorly at that, with renewed violence "in the name of Christ." This would not have stopped a powerful movement from without.
This blog will not untie a knot that has been fumbled with for centuries. In the aforementioned Buddhist village, the villagers knew that they would be wiped out. It was their opinion that it would be better to go to eternity with a cleaner karma than to live for a few more years - and their children's, and their children's children's years - on this earthly plain. Is that what Christ was demanding? There are arguments to be made in favor of this, but the reality of it is something else. We would, indeed, become slaves or simply be killed. The bite of the apple would be the idea that we deserve to live at the expense of other's lives, even if those others were threatening us. Are we not one? Is this not the breaking of the second greatest of divine laws, to treat others as we would like to be treated (the first is to love God with all one's heart)? Shouldn't we simply turn the other cheek?
I can see the alternative arguments - that we are doing the world good by stopping evil, that we are protecting what life God has given us in natural defense and so on, but these are arguments. On the face of it, on the facts of the Gospel, none of them seem to fly. And in the end, it seems to all come down to that one phrase: who is brave - or foolish - enough to refuse the bite of the apple? FK
RSS Feed