Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:36:33 MST
From:         Usenet/Netnews Moderator <FOCMCB@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Defending Ourselves

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
>From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
>Subject: Re:      Re: Defending Ourselves
>Organization: U of Cambridge, England
>Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:33:44 GMT

[NOTE: I don't think my posts have been making it through the gateway from
 Usenet. I am going to try posting this in the usual fashion and also
subscribe
 to CHRISTIA by mail and send it by that route. Apologies if some of you see
 two copies of this. Incidentally, I suppose it's possible that something's
 amiss with my "reception" of CHRISTIA; if any of you saw my response to
Ian's
 review of "The Screwtape Letters", please let me know.]


In article <9301200606.AA03032@gboro.rowan.edu>, Darren Provine ponders the
question of pacifism. He mentions Jesus's words about not resisting those who
attack you, and concludes that all the evidence suggests that we should not
fight in self-defence. With this I agree, and for more or less exactly the
reasons he gives.

He then asks: (i) what about a "just war"?, and (ii) what about (iia) the
"purification of the Temple" and (iib) Jesus telling his followers to buy
swords? A few thoughts on these...


(i) What about a just war, or [as Darren says] more generally the question
    of what to do when others are endangered too?

I think we must consider here the question of why we are commanded to turn
the other cheek, go the second mile and so on. Presumably it is not because
God wants those who try to bend others to their will by violence to succeed;
so, why? Well, of course we can't be sure -- we are not told -- but in both
of the Gospel accounts of this, it is right next to the "love your enemies"
bit: it is a matter of loving even those who use violence against you. In
Matthew, it is preceded by Jesus referring to the old "an eye for an eye":
this was (I believe) originally intended as a limit on revenge, which
suggests
that the "turn the other cheek" principle is (at least partly) a matter of
not seeking revenge. Finally, I take it that it's also a matter of refraining
from violence in general: making others suffer is a bad thing, even if it is
done in retribution.

The picture begins to emerge. We are to love even those who abuse us, and
oblige them when they request things of us even if they do so with violence;
we are not to harbour grudges, and certainly should not seek revenge (recall
Jesus's instructions that we must forgive as often as we are sinned against);
and in any event violence is a Bad Thing.

So, what if there is more at issue than our cheek, our cloak, our wallet?
What
if (say) our children or friends are threatened? At this point the element of
revenge, of concern for ourselves, becomes less significant: if we fight,
we're
less likely to be doing it for such bad motives. Violence is still bad; but
if
fighting results in less violence and suffering overall (and we had better be
very sure it will) that speaks rather in favour of fighting.

So, I think there is still (alas) a place for the just war; even, perhaps,
for
violence in defence of others. But we must be sure we are not fighting out of
hatred, revenge or fear; to this sort of fighting Jesus's words are as
applicable
as ever.


(iia) What about Jesus and the moneychangers in the temple?

This one has never caused me any trouble, actually. There is no question here
of revenge, no question of cowardly fear for one's personal safety, no
question
of hatred. Using the Temple as a source of financial profit was blasphemy of
the
highest (lowest?) order, and Jesus was making quite clear God's position on
this.

It does raise the question of "righteous anger", and my opinion on this
subject
is: When you have as much reason to suppose that you are right as Jesus had
to
suppose that he was, you can be angry like he was. I think that means
"never".


(iib) What about Luke 22:36?

It is interesting to note that immediately after Jesus tells his followers to
go and buy swords he explains that this is so that the prophecy that he would
be "reckoned among the transgressors" might be fulfilled. Note that when it
seems that there may actually be a fight, Jesus rebukes those of his
followers
who want one. (John 18:11)

I do not think Luke 22:36 can be read as an endorsement of violence by Jesus.

Note also that Jesus himself does not take a sword. Perhaps this fits with
(iia):
maybe it is more acceptable for his followers to fight in his defence than
for
him to do so himself. Hmm.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU