Christian Ontology

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm posting this in the GT forum, despite my reservations, because this is very much "Traditional Theology". But, i've been thinking about something for a while, and it has a bit to do with my thesis, and this has actually been consuming more of my time than my Thesis. Hans being in town to visit me really helped me think through this a bit, and I realized something the other night about when this made sense to me. So... here we go.

A pastor/professor would always use this term, "A Christian Ontology". It always bothered me because I couldn't help but think that so much orthodox thought is predicated upon an assumed Greek philosophy which, itself, isn't necessarily that bad. Instead, I just felt it was impossible to call any "ontology" a "Christian" one because really we're just talking about theology in light of some assumed philosophy, whichever one we pick.

Then, I saw this movie, Of Gods and Men. In it, there is a scene where the monks partake of a "last supper", where one of the monks reads an article, in the form of a sermon, to the other monks. In it there is a line about the fact that embracing weakness and forsaking the idol of power gives witness to reality, the reality of Christ. When my internet stops being so terrible, I'll find it.

There is a "Christian Ontology". It is not any particular philosophy, but it is a belief in a fundamental reality, and a fundamental understanding of history which turns everything else upside down.

We talk about a lot of things as though they're "reality", and this tempers our statements about theology and other things because we desire to make sense of "reality". Just the other day I was told that hopefully my pacifist inclinations would temper when I came to terms with "reality" (aka grew older and had children).

However, a Christian Ontology is the understanding, from the point of faith, that history is contained in a 33-year time period, and began when "The Word became flesh". "Reality" is Jesus Christ, incarnated, crucified, and risen. This is reality, and everything else competes, in varying degrees, with this reality. To be a Christian is to be baptised into this reality, and to understand the world around us in light of this reality, calling others to participate in this reality with us. Thus, our eschatological hopes are not hopes for what God "will do", or "will accomplish", but are instead hopes that reality will be revealed.

This gives a different meaning to the term "martyr." To be a "martyr" is to be a witness to one's faith through death. What we are a "witness" to, when we die for our faith, is the fundamental reality of the world - that Christ has come, Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ is Lord - and that all attempts at control and power in the world are a farce.

This way of talking changes everything. It changes our language. It changes the way the world looks. Now, pacifism is automatically "martyrdom", because to die in faithful obedience to the way of Christ is to witness to reality - Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord - and is to resist attempts at control and power.

This also begins to make our "good news" make sense. The "good news" is that the world as we understand it - pain, suffering, sin, death - is not reality. This is why we meet each Sunday for the liturgy, to experience and be reminded of reality and to receive water to quench our thirst from the desert of the world, and to receive forgiveness for our participation in the false reality of the world, and for the times in which we were tempted to believe it was true.

[Jim Chabot]

Looks like you are off to a good start!

Absolutely agree that there are things which must be "real", they must have actually happened otherwise our faith is in vain.

Paul, of course, spoke this way of the resurrection in pointed terms. Either this actually happened, or we are to be pitied, he says.

You do realize that while you recognize this "reality" and proclaim that there is truly an ontology or reality. Most of this post does not speak to this, most is theology, most is all "Ben." Your take away while valuable is not "reality."

I am really glad to see this turning point though. I am still vividly reminded from time to time of our discussion over a year ago where you vehemently denied much of the "reality" surrounding the passion.

[Benjamin Burch]

Looks like you are off to a good start!

Absolutely agree that there are things which must be "real", they must have actually happened otherwise our faith is in vain.

Paul, of course, spoke this way of the resurrection in pointed terms. Either this actually happened, or we are to be pitied, he says.

You do realize that while you recognize this "reality" and proclaim that there is truly an ontology or reality. Most of this post does not speak to this, most is theology, most is all "Ben." Your take away while valuable is not "reality."

I am really glad to see this turning point though. I am still vividly reminded from time to time of our discussion over a year ago where you vehemently denied much of the "reality" surrounding the passion.

I'm not sure I ever denied reality surrounding the passion. I've said many times that there are other ways to speak about the resurrection... which I think can be made to work with what I've said here.

Also, I don't really mean "reality" in the sense that it "really happened". In fact, that's the entire thinking I'm trying to combat. Surely that's a part of it. However, that hardly encompasses "reality", which I would argue is much, much larger, and is what I'm talking about.

[Benjamin Burch]

I also disagree 100% with you commentary. My takeaway isn't "Ben", it's part and parcel of the Gospel. Without pacifism there is no gospel at all, and no more Christianity, for without it, Christ has not risen from the dead, and Christ did not die at all. For if pacifism is not what we are called to, then death still has power, the grave still has victory, and the powers of the world, oppression, persecution, sin, and violence, still execute power over and against the victory claimed by the cross and empty tomb.

We simply are left powerless to say that Christ has won anything if we refuse pacifism. Without it, there is no gospel, and we make a proclamation that the violence of the world is the real "reality".

[Hans Deventer]

Without pacifism there is no gospel at all, and no more Christianity, for without it, Christ has not risen from the dead, and Christ did not die at all. For if pacifism is not what we are called to, then death still has power, the grave still has victory, and the powers of the world, oppression, persecution, sin, and violence, still execute power over and against the victory claimed by the cross and empty tomb.

We simply are left powerless to say that Christ has won anything if we refuse pacifism. Without it, there is no gospel, and we make a proclamation that the violence of the world is the real "reality".

I may have read a stronger case for pacifism somewhere, but I sure don't remember. Wow!

[Jim Chabot]

I'm not sure I ever denied reality surrounding the passion. I've said many times that there are other ways to speak about the resurrection... which I think can be made to work with what I've said here.

Also, I don't really mean "reality" in the sense that it "really happened". In fact, that's the entire thinking I'm trying to combat. Surely that's a part of it. However, that hardly encompasses "reality", which I would argue is much, much larger, and is what I'm talking about.

Sorry, I have misunderstood you. I guess that we must disagree then. I must state unequivocally that if it never "really happened" then Christianity is nothing more than a cruel hoax and should be summarily condemned by all who encounter it.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry, I have misunderstood you. I guess that we must disagree then. I must state unequivocally that if it never "really happened" then Christianity is nothing more than a cruel hoax and should be summarily condemned by all who encounter it.

I think Ben isn't arguing for less than "really happened", but for more.

[Jim Chabot]

I also disagree 100% with you commentary. My takeaway isn't "Ben", it's part and parcel of the Gospel. Without pacifism there is no gospel at all, and no more Christianity, for without it, Christ has not risen from the dead, and Christ did not die at all. For if pacifism is not what we are called to, then death still has power, the grave still has victory, and the powers of the world, oppression, persecution, sin, and violence, still execute power over and against the victory claimed by the cross and empty tomb.

We simply are left powerless to say that Christ has won anything if we refuse pacifism. Without it, there is no gospel, and we make a proclamation that the violence of the world is the real "reality".

Sorry again, but the gospel says no such thing, not at all. This may be more than just "Ben", but it is certainly not the gospel. While I realize that we make room for those of a pacifist mindset in the CoTN, it is also true that we do not require nor espouse this, there is room here for both. I cannot find that pacifism is compatible with Christianity. I believe that the gospel embodies a love that is powerful enough to protect others by the use of lethal force if necessary.

Should you define the gospel as one requiring pacifism, then yes I would say that Christ has not won anything. It has been 2000 with no evidence whereby this gospel has produced anything. There has been ample time to come to the conclusion that this just plain isn't it. Those who say so, must misunderstand the gospel, or the gospel is a lie, it is one or the other.

[Jim Chabot]

I think Ben isn't arguing for less than "really happened", but for more.

I must disagree, I can still recall our conversation a while back. He was most definitely arguing for something quite disconnected with reality. He was arguing for something far less. At the time I stated that while I was certainly glad that he had embraced Christ, I had no idea as to why he would do so. Given Ben's position at the time, I would reject Christianity and recommend the same to anyone that I know and love.

In the sense that he is indeed arguing for more. The more is his import, the more is theology it is most assuredly not ontology.

[Ryan Scott]

Sorry again, but the gospel says no such thing, not at all. This may be more than just "Ben", but it is certainly not the gospel. While I realize that we make room for those of a pacifist mindset in the CoTN, it is also true that we do not require nor espouse this, there is room here for both. I cannot find that pacifism is compatible with Christianity. I believe that the gospel embodies a love that is powerful enough to protect others by the use of lethal force if necessary.

That's not a gospel reality. It's not included in the life and teachings of Jesus, nor in the scriptural accounts of the early Church. It may be a valid philosophical argument (as the Church made once it had been accepted into secular power structures), but it is not a valid scriptural understanding of the purpose of resurrection.

He's not attempting to define ethics here, but simply speaking about our understanding of resurrection. Indeed the resurrection has no value if death remains the reality by which we, as Christians, live. That is entirely orthodox.

[Jim Chabot]

That's not a gospel reality. It's not included in the life and teachings of Jesus, nor in the scriptural accounts of the early Church. It may be a valid philosophical argument (as the Church made once it had been accepted into secular power structures), but it is not a valid scriptural understanding of the purpose of resurrection.

He's not attempting to define ethics here, but simply speaking about our understanding of resurrection. Indeed the resurrection has no value if death remains the reality by which we, as Christians, live. That is entirely orthodox.

Of course death no longer remains the reality by which we live. I'm talking about others here. There is no real difference between feeding a starving person, clothing the naked, or protecting the powerless. It's about caring for the welfare of other people, nothing to do with worrying about our own death. It's a love thing and it is indeed the gospel reality.

But that isn't the point of the thread. Supposedly this is about ontology, or what is real. And upon what is real, I'll stand with Paul. Convince me that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus didn't really happen as it is recorded in scripture and I will hand in my card tomorrow and become an enemy of that which is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

I'm still thinking that this is not about ontology at all.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry again, but the gospel says no such thing, not at all.

Sorry, I actually think you are entirely mistaken. With the Early Church, I understand the gospel to be incompatible with violence, or not be a gospel at all. Which, ever since the Church changed its tune to join the ranks of the powerful, is exactly what we have seen throughout history. It's just the politics of this world, the sad reality of this world indeed.

I've been thinking for many years that pacifism is the logical outcome of the gospel. But Ben is right, there actually is no gospel outside of it. We either follow our Lord to the cross, or we don't. Not much room to do it on one's own terms. It is getting clearer.

[Ryan Scott]

But that isn't the point of the thread. Supposedly this is about ontology, or what is real. And upon what is real, I'll stand with Paul. Convince me that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus didn't really happen as it is recorded in scripture and I will hand in my card tomorrow and become an enemy of that which is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

But the argument here is simply that it doesn't matter if you believe Christ was bodily raised from the dead or not - if you fail to live in the reality of resurrection. We only really believe that which we embody.

The ontology of the gospel is that there are many things for which I would be willing to die, but there is not one single thing for which I would be willing to kill another human being. There is no gospel apart from this; if there is some thing for which I would kill, then my reality doesn't need a resurrected savior (it might require a crucified one, but it doesn't need a resurrected one).

[Jim Chabot]

Sorry, I actually think you are entirely mistaken. With the Early Church, I understand the gospel to be incompatible with violence, or not be a gospel at all. Which, ever since the Church changed its tune to join the ranks of the powerful, is exactly what we have seen throughout history. It's just the politics of this world, the sad reality of this world indeed.

I've been thinking for many years that pacifism is the logical outcome of the gospel. But Ben is right, there actually is no gospel outside of it. We either follow our Lord to the cross, or we don't. Not much room to do it on one's own terms. It is getting clearer.

Sorry but I can't follow you down this path. The Christ that I follow asks that I love others. He asks that I do not stand to the side and wring my hands when others suffer. The early church did not join the ranks of the powerful, rather they were successful in converting the powerful to the cause of Christ.

But once again I must protest that this is not ontology at all. More like bait and switch so I'm done. I have no need to engage in another endless pacifism thread.

[Craig Laughlin]

First let me say excellent topic. It will be interesting to see if we can have this discussion on Naznet. I hope so.

A pastor/professor would always use this term, "A Christian Ontology". It always bothered me because I couldn't help but think that so much orthodox thought is predicated upon an assumed Greek philosophy which, itself, isn't necessarily that bad. Instead, I just felt it was impossible to call any "ontology" a "Christian" one because really we're just talking about theology in light of some assumed philosophy, whichever one we pick.

I think this position is spot on. The very idea of an adjective attached to Ontology is fundamentally a contradiction in terms. I hear you saying... "see that is the Greek thinking coming out" and you would be right but Ontology is itself a Greek idea that is pretty strongly Platonic. I idea of something having Ontological validity assumes a Greek/Platonic world view does it not?

(Like the word "fact" is an empirical word and assumes a Empirical epistemology)

I think I get what they are trying to say when someone uses the phrase "Christian Ontology" but in my experiance it doesn't really work because the idea iteself assumes a "Christian" epistemology. A Christian Epistemology is by definition grounded in Faith. Faith is itself grounded in how we hear God via (Wesleyan) Scripture, tradition, reason and experience which are all heavily dependent upon "interpretation" which is itself highly subjective.

All that to say, I'm not very confident that one can graft Ontological validity into a Hebrew/Christian paradigm.

That being said and never being one to let the presuppositions get in the way of a good discussion...

Then, I saw this movie, Of Gods and Men. In it, there is a scene where the monks partake of a "last supper", where one of the monks reads an article, in the form of a sermon, to the other monks. In it there is a line about the fact that embracing weakness and forsaking the idol of power gives witness to reality, the reality of Christ. When my internet stops being so terrible, I'll find it.

There is a "Christian Ontology". It is not any particular philosophy, but it is a belief in a fundamental reality, and a fundamental understanding of history which turns everything else upside down.

We talk about a lot of things as though they're "reality", and this tempers our statements about theology and other things because we desire to make sense of "reality". Just the other day I was told that hopefully my pacifist inclinations would temper when I came to terms with "reality" (aka grew older and had children).

However, a Christian Ontology is the understanding, from the point of faith, that history is contained in a 33-year time period, and began when "The Word became flesh". "Reality" is Jesus Christ, incarnated, crucified, and risen. This is reality, and everything else competes, in varying degrees, with this reality.

I was with you all the way to the last sentence. I think the stumbling block for me would be the word "competes" in that it would seem to put creation in the back seat ontologically. I think a better word would be lens. The person of Christ is the "lens" through which we understand everything else.

We affirm as our epistimological vehicle for understanding the ontological validity of Christ as not just the gospels. (33 years) We hold that our understanding of who Christ is must take into account the old testament and the non gospel New testament writings. The 33 years informs our understand of the rest of it AND the rest of it informs our understanding of those 33 years.

To be a Christian is to be baptised into this reality, and to understand the world around us in light of this reality, calling others to participate in this reality with us. Thus, our eschatological hopes are not hopes for what God "will do", or "will accomplish", but are instead hopes that reality will be revealed.

Excellent, very well said and spot on.

This gives a different meaning to the term "martyr." To be a "martyr" is to be a witness to one's faith through death. What we are a "witness" to, when we die for our faith, is the fundamental reality of the world - that Christ has come, Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ is Lord - and that all attempts at control and power in the world are a farce.

Agree all the way to the last phrase and it is not some much that I disagree as I'm not sure what that means.

This way of talking changes everything. It changes our language. It changes the way the world looks. Now, pacifism is automatically "martyrdom", because to die in faithful obedience to the way of Christ is to witness to reality - Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord - and is to resist attempts at control and power.

This also begins to make our "good news" make sense. The "good news" is that the world as we understand it - pain, suffering, sin, death - is not reality. This is why we meet each Sunday for the liturgy, to experience and be reminded of reality and to receive water to quench our thirst from the desert of the world, and to receive forgiveness for our participation in the false reality of the world, and for the times in which we were tempted to believe it was true.

Again, excellent and spot on.

Excellent post and topic. Thanks Ben.

[Jim Chabot]

But the argument here is simply that it doesn't matter if you believe Christ was bodily raised from the dead or not - if you fail to live in the reality of resurrection. We only really believe that which we embody.

Come on! this is circular reasoning at it's worst. It does too matter, I have no need to embody a lie.

[Ryan Pugh]

The Christ that I follow asks that I love others.

Exactly.

[Craig Laughlin]

Are there two threads?

[Jim Chabot]

Exactly.

Talk is cheap, love requires that we protect, action is required or there is no love.

But thanks for the mild sarcasm.

[Jim Chabot]

Are there two threads?

Yes, there is another one over in the post trad forum. Which is probably a much better place to have this discussion.

[Ryan Scott]

Come on! this is circular reasoning at it's worst. It does too matter, I have no need to embody a lie.

Of course you're right (although it seems to work well in practice for the Mormons), but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm saying that if you don't embody the resurrection, you treat it like a lie whether it really happened or not.

[Cam Pence]

We either follow our Lord to the cross, or we don't. Not much room to do it on one's own terms. It is getting clearer.

Gotta be honest I am seeing a lot more of statements like this and I get a bit weary. Help clear this up for me. I am not a pacifist. I am not going to defend it here and as far as I am concerned no one has to defend being a pacifist to me. The term "Big Tent" comes to mind. I understand the position and respect it, but like Jim, I cannot see Jesus expecting us not to defend the defenseless. (If anyone plans on trying to refute this one sentence to the exclusion of the main point of my post, I would encourage you not to waste your time as I have no desire to debate pacifism here and will not respond) That aside, I hear more and more of this "it has to be this or nothing at all" logic lately when it comes to this issue. Are you (pacifists) saying that in order to be a Christ follower/Christian, that I must agree with you about this ideology? If so, does that mean that all of the military chaplains out there must accept the same conclusion and quit their current ministries in order to really be Christians? I know another group in our denomination that uses this same tactic of "with us or against us" and most of us (rightly) reject it. Am I just understanding these absolute statements incorrectly? I hope I am. But the more I see this " either you follow Jesus and are a pacifist, or you don't follow Jesus" statements, the more they are starting to come off in the same light as "Either you believe creation happened in 7 24 hour days 4000 years ago, or you are not following Christ" or "Either you believe in Penal Substitution or you are denying the gospel". That is scary considering this is Naznet. Plus the people I am hearing this from are people who opinions and theology I deeply respect (even if I do not always agree). So please someone clear this up for me, what is being implied here with this "line in the sand" reasoning when it comes to pacifism?

[Ryan Pugh]

Talk is cheap, love requires that we protect, action is required or there is no love.

Completely agree. Love cannot be neutral.

But thanks for the mild sarcasm.

[Ryan Scott]

Gotta be honest I am seeing a lot more of statements like this and I get a bit weary. Help clear this up for me. I am not a pacifist. I am not going to defend it here and as far as I am concerned no one has to defend being a pacifist to me. The term "Big Tent" comes to mind. I understand the position and respect it, but like Jim, I cannot see Jesus expecting us not to defend the defenseless. (If anyone plans on trying to refute this one sentence to the exclusion of the main point of my post, I would encourage you not to waste your time as I have no desire to debate pacifism here and will not respond) That aside, I hear more and more of this "it has to be this or nothing at all" logic lately when it comes to this issue. Are you (pacifists) saying that in order to be a Christ follower/Christian, that I must agree with you about this ideology? If so, does that mean that all of the military chaplains out there must accept the same conclusion and quit their current ministries in order to really be Christians? I know another group in our denomination that uses this same tactic of "with us or against us" and most of us (rightly) reject it. Am I just understanding these absolute statements incorrectly? I hope I am. But the more I see this " either you follow Jesus and are a pacifist, or you don't follow Jesus" statements, the more they are starting to come off in the same light as "Either you believe creation happened in 7 24 hour days 4000 years ago, or you are not following Christ" or "Either you believe in Penal Substitution or you are denying the gospel". That is scary considering this is Naznet. Plus the people I am hearing this from are people who opinions and theology I deeply respect (even if I do not always agree). So please someone clear this up for me, what is being implied here with this "line in the sand" reasoning when it comes to pacifism?

I'm saying, I don't understand how one can find anything but a repudiation of all violence in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or the lifestyle and commitment of his followers in the first several hundred years.

I do understand the position of violence on behalf of others as an accommodation to society, but I believe, along with Bonheoffer, that such accommodation requires sorrow and repentance because it falls short of the ideal of Christ. Such violence is a human failure, even as those who participate acknowledge it as something they feel impelled to do.

I am committed to radical non-violence (as are most of my chaplain friends - who tell their soldiers that they'll lay down on top of them to take bullets, but will not kill anyone else to save them), but I do not claim to be able to live it out. I highly doubt my own ability to act as I wish in such a stressful situation. I hope I will and I try to institute practices in my own life that will prepare me to do so, but I expect to fail - short of miraculous spiritual intervention.

I've done a lot of research on non-violence and justified violence - and while I refuse to make a blanket statement for all people, I do think the gospel response is to call for less violence always. Violence is always regrettable and falls short of resurrection ideals. I'm not going to pass judgement on those who find it regrettably necessary, but I will condemn those who defend it unquestioningly.

Ultimately this is a question of ontology because it comes down to what we believe to be real. Is the resurrection real. Is the idea that self-sacrifice provides for the redemption of the world something I can live into - or do I have to continue living in a world where fear, death, and power reign until Christ returns.

Those are two realities in which people who claim Christ live. I don't think scripture defends the latter, even if some find it regrettably real at various times.

[Benjamin Burch]

Of course death no longer remains the reality by which we live. I'm talking about others here. There is no real difference between feeding a starving person, clothing the naked, or protecting the powerless. It's about caring for the welfare of other people, nothing to do with worrying about our own death. It's a love thing and it is indeed the gospel reality.

But that isn't the point of the thread. Supposedly this is about ontology, or what is real. And upon what is real, I'll stand with Paul. Convince me that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus didn't really happen as it is recorded in scripture and I will hand in my card tomorrow and become an enemy of that which is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

I'm still thinking that this is not about ontology at all.

Of course i believe that the Word "really" became flesh, that the Word "really" was crucified in the flesh and that - in some sense of the term - Christ "really" rose from the dead in a way that assures us resurrection from the dead.

But ontology is not positivist history.

Ontology is the way that the world is. What is really "real."

Ontology doesn't mean I can assure you something happened in the past. Ontology means the world really is a certain way now.

In the midst of the evil, the pain, the suffering, the reality of it all is that Christ has already won, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection. In the midst of nations clamoring for power and control, the reality is that Christ is Lord, and already conquered all.

This is why the proof of our faith is not in historicity, but in the Liturgy. Instead of talking about what "really happened" (which again, we believe, but it is such a small thing), the Liturgy shows us what "really is." In the Eucharist, as well as the spoken Word, we encounter the Word made flesh who truly is still very much alive. Every time we encounter the Word through the elements and through the sermon, we are reminded that death has no sting, powers of war and oppression have no victory, and that there are no battles left to be fought - there is simply a revelation to be made by God.

Again, when we think this way, and we realize what is "really real," we realize we are called to be faithful to this reality - not to succumb to the competing narratives being told around us. And when we realize that this is reality, we realize we have no need of protection, for we are already alive eternally, and the grave has no sting.

What is more, when the whole Church realized this was true, there would be no more need to think of protecting each other as some form of "love". Instead, it would be the opposite of love, because it would be denying the reality to which they have become a part, and begun to accept as true.

[Ryan Pugh]

Of course i believe that the Word "really" became flesh, that the Word "really" was crucified in the flesh and that - in some sense of the term - Christ "really" rose from the dead in a way that assures us resurrection from the dead.

But ontology is not positivist history.

Ontology is the way that the world is. What is really "real."

Ontology doesn't mean I can assure you something happened in the past. Ontology means the world really is a certain way now.

In the midst of the evil, the pain, the suffering, the reality of it all is that Christ has already won, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection. In the midst of nations clamoring for power and control, the reality is that Christ is Lord, and already conquered all.

This is why the proof of our faith is not in historicity, but in the Liturgy. Instead of talking about what "really happened" (which again, we believe, but it is such a small thing), the Liturgy shows us what "really is." In the Eucharist, as well as the spoken Word, we encounter the Word made flesh who truly is still very much alive. Every time we encounter the Word through the elements and through the sermon, we are reminded that death has no sting, powers of war and oppression have no victory, and that there are no battles left to be fought - there is simply a revelation to be made by God.

Again, when we think this way, and we realize what is "really real," we realize we are called to be faithful to this reality - not to succumb to the competing narratives being told around us. And when we realize that this is reality, we realize we have no need of protection, for we are already alive eternally, and the grave has no sting.

What is more, when the whole Church realized this was true, there would be no more need to think of protecting each other as some form of "love". Instead, it would be the opposite of love, because it would be denying the reality to which they have become a part, and begun to accept as true.

Ben, I'll just say that I'm really looking forward to hearing more from you about all of this. So keep studying hard...

[Benjamin Burch]

Gotta be honest I am seeing a lot more of statements like this and I get a bit weary. Help clear this up for me. I am not a pacifist. I am not going to defend it here and as far as I am concerned no one has to defend being a pacifist to me. The term "Big Tent" comes to mind. I understand the position and respect it, but like Jim, I cannot see Jesus expecting us not to defend the defenseless. (If anyone plans on trying to refute this one sentence to the exclusion of the main point of my post, I would encourage you not to waste your time as I have no desire to debate pacifism here and will not respond) That aside, I hear more and more of this "it has to be this or nothing at all" logic lately when it comes to this issue. Are you (pacifists) saying that in order to be a Christ follower/Christian, that I must agree with you about this ideology? If so, does that mean that all of the military chaplains out there must accept the same conclusion and quit their current ministries in order to really be Christians? I know another group in our denomination that uses this same tactic of "with us or against us" and most of us (rightly) reject it. Am I just understanding these absolute statements incorrectly? I hope I am. But the more I see this " either you follow Jesus and are a pacifist, or you don't follow Jesus" statements, the more they are starting to come off in the same light as "Either you believe creation happened in 7 24 hour days 4000 years ago, or you are not following Christ" or "Either you believe in Penal Substitution or you are denying the gospel". That is scary considering this is Naznet. Plus the people I am hearing this from are people who opinions and theology I deeply respect (even if I do not always agree). So please someone clear this up for me, what is being implied here with this "line in the sand" reasoning when it comes to pacifism?

What is being implied (by myself) is that we all sin and lack the glory of God. God is not a God who will come back to save a Church who has done everything right, or a people who all thought right and acted right. God is coming back to save a people who have fallen dreadfully short, and whose only plea is "for the sake of your Son, and his blood."

I could probably answer you best this way, Cam:

My friend and I were talking about this the other day, and that this was why I do not vote. Because, by extension, I am supporting war, and blah blah down the line. He asked me how it is that I can draw a line at voting, how do I know I don't participate in other ways?

I told him that I am not so sure, and we can never be sure, and that I am as guilty as any other. That is why I come back to the Liturgy every Sunday. That is why I confess my sins every Sunday, and it is why I partake of the Eucharist every Sunday.

[Benjamin Burch]

Completely agree. Love cannot be neutral.

Yoder said it best when he said (inexact quote) that when Jesus told us to love our enemies he destroyed any idea that killing them was a valid way of loving your neighbor.

It's interesting to me that we envisage situations where I must choose one or the other - loving my enemy or loving my neighbor. The Cross and Resurrection assure us that in reality, there is a way that does both.

[Jim Chabot]

Yoder said it best when he said (inexact quote) that when Jesus told us to love our enemies he destroyed any idea that killing them was a valid way of loving your neighbor.

It's interesting to me that we envisage situations where I must choose one or the other - loving my enemy or loving my neighbor. The Cross and Resurrection assure us that in reality, there is a way that does both.

Yoder might not be the best one to be speaking as to loving your neighbor. Just sayin.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yoder might not be the best one to be speaking as to loving your neighbor. Just sayin.

Ah, but I would argue that whole issue is an example of why hist teachings in many ways are "the best one speaking". His student, driven by Yoder's teachings, counseled Yoder to repent and to submit to the authority of his Church, and due to Hauerwas' convictions due to Yoder's teaching, Yoder was reconciled to the body of faith.

I'd say that's a powerful validation of one's teaching.

[Dale Cozby]

My friend and I were talking about this the other day, and that this was why I do not vote. Because, by extension, I am supporting war, and blah blah down the line. He asked me how it is that I can draw a line at voting, how do I know I don't participate in other ways?

I told him that I am not so sure, and we can never be sure, and that I am as guilty as any other. That is why I come back to the Liturgy every Sunday. That is why I confess my sins every Sunday, and it is why I partake of the Eucharist every Sunday.

It seems to me that if we are sinning in word thought and deed daily, knowingly or otherwise, we should be confessing daily, hourly and not expect Sunday "bathing" to make us clean.

Some other thoughts: Absolute pacifism does not equal perfected love.
It may present us with a sense of trust, hope and faith in Christ alone, and even a purging of fear of death, but it too falls short of perfect love.
Perfect love is messy, it does not present itself with such a stark choice: absolute non-violence as Christlike versus any violence is UnChristlike sin.
We cannot measure our love by our belief or unbelief in the value of absolute pacifism.

[Jim Chabot]

Ah, but I would argue that whole issue is an example of why hist teachings in many ways are "the best one speaking". His student, driven by Yoder's teachings, counseled Yoder to repent and to submit to the authority of his Church, and due to Hauerwas' convictions due to Yoder's teaching, Yoder was reconciled to the body of faith.

I'd say that's a powerful validation of one's teaching.

Ok, I get it now. Sort of like Ayn Rand.

[Benjamin Burch]

It seems to me that if we are sinning in word thought and deed daily, knowingly or otherwise, we should be confessing daily, hourly and not expect Sunday "bathing" to make us clean.

(1) Of course, the whole of life is one of repentance.

(2) The means of grace are located in the Liturgy. This is God's normative way of "bathing".

Some other thoughts: Absolute pacifism does not equal perfected love.
It may present us with a sense of trust, hope and faith in Christ alone, and even a purging of fear of death, but it too falls short of perfect love.

The Cross of Christ equals perfected love. To the extent that we embody this, to that extent we embody perfect love.

Perfect love is messy, it does not present itself with such a stark choice: absolute non-violence as Christlike versus any violence is UnChristlike sin.

You seem to be reacting against passivism, not pacifism.

We cannot measure our love by our belief or unbelief in the value of absolute pacifism.

I'm not sure I've ever quite said that.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ok, I get it now. Sort of like Ayn Rand.

You'd have to explain.

[Ryan Scott]

Perfect love is messy, it does not present itself with such a stark choice: absolute non-violence as Christlike versus any violence is UnChristlike sin.

I agree that there are always more than two choices and navigating this is often very difficult - but violence is never the right choice (and neither is inaction). There is always something to be done. On occasion our imaginations fail us and we resort to violence - we may not have been able to find the right action, so we do the best we can. I'm ok with that. I'm just not ok with condoning it as representative of the gospel.

[Jim Chabot]

You'd have to explain.

Just another do as I say not as I do reference. I could throw in Amy McPherson if you would like as well.

[Hans Deventer]

Gotta be honest I am seeing a lot more of statements like this and I get a bit weary. Help clear this up for me. I am not a pacifist. I am not going to defend it here and as far as I am concerned no one has to defend being a pacifist to me. The term "Big Tent" comes to mind. I understand the position and respect it, but like Jim, I cannot see Jesus expecting us not to defend the defenseless. (If anyone plans on trying to refute this one sentence to the exclusion of the main point of my post, I would encourage you not to waste your time as I have no desire to debate pacifism here and will not respond) That aside, I hear more and more of this "it has to be this or nothing at all" logic lately when it comes to this issue. Are you (pacifists) saying that in order to be a Christ follower/Christian, that I must agree with you about this ideology? If so, does that mean that all of the military chaplains out there must accept the same conclusion and quit their current ministries in order to really be Christians? I know another group in our denomination that uses this same tactic of "with us or against us" and most of us (rightly) reject it. Am I just understanding these absolute statements incorrectly? I hope I am. But the more I see this " either you follow Jesus and are a pacifist, or you don't follow Jesus" statements, the more they are starting to come off in the same light as "Either you believe creation happened in 7 24 hour days 4000 years ago, or you are not following Christ" or "Either you believe in Penal Substitution or you are denying the gospel". That is scary considering this is Naznet. Plus the people I am hearing this from are people who opinions and theology I deeply respect (even if I do not always agree). So please someone clear this up for me, what is being implied here with this "line in the sand" reasoning when it comes to pacifism?

Cam, I'm saying nothing of that kind. The CotN has indeed a big tent and I'm not pushing anyone out. That's what the fundies do. But I thought it was permissible to state one's beliefs regarding the Gospel on NazNet? And I'm simply getting more and more convinced that the the argument that you must use violence to protect others is just a pretext. God doesn't do it and we all believe He is love. Many in the Early Church were NOT protected, and yet did not hesitate to die for their faith and protected no one. They left it to the One who said: "It is mine to avenge". So in my view, the argument makes no sense and it's just a poor excuse to avoid following Christ. And Jesus is indeed exactly asking us to follow Him and take up our cross, not to form a regulated militia and bear arms. Some might confuse the Gospel with the American Constitution.

So this is my view. But it's not up to me to judge anyone and people will be responsible to the One who will judge, not to me. I do think I have a right to say what I believe though, at least as strongly as the advocates of violence have.

To be as clear as possible: do I believe following Jesus requires banishing all violence, and that it is a non negotiable and essential part of the Gospel? If I stand before the Lord of Lords and He will ask me that question, I can only say: yes I do.
Do I believe that everyone who thinks differently is on a highway to hell and should by all means be thrown out of the CotN? ABSOLUTELY NOT! You are right, such thinking would make one as bad as a CN, or worse. I hate that kind of thinking.

[Benjamin Burch]

Just another do as I say not as I do reference. I could throw in Amy McPherson if you would like as well.

Why would we ever want do as Ayn Rand says?

[Jim Chabot]

Why would we ever want do as Ayn Rand says?

Sorry Ben, I was mostly joking around. I couldn't help myself when you backed Ryan up with advice from a molester. And then you defend him with yet another villain. Just too much for me to take.

Like I said Yoder lacks any capacity to speak on the subject of love, talk is cheap, this guy abused women for many years before being caught and dragged into compliance kicking and screaming all the way. While Hauerwas hasn't fallen prey to this sort of thing, he isn't exactly someone I would want anywhere near my family. Haurwas views on marriage negate anything else he has to say on any subject, needless to say I wouldn't welcome either one of these guys into my home.

Sorry, but these guys really give me the creeps.

[Marcus Kibbe]

And I'm simply getting more and more convinced that the the argument that you must use violence to protect others is just a pretext. God doesn't do it and we all believe He is love.

God doesn't do it? What about the flood, raining fire and brimstone, OT wartime atrocities, famine, inflicting dieseases and plagues, the crucifixion, casting people into a furnace of fire, ...... I'm sure I missed 10 or 50 other examples.

Does that constitute "violence"? Are those things really "real"?