Christian Ontology

[Dale Cozby]

violence is never the right choice (and neither is inaction). There is always something to be done.

But if there is more than two choices, then violence must be included. Otherwise the choice is ALWAYS non-violent. Violence can come in many forms. Active restraint of a suicidal person may require some level of violence to prevent self-murder. Active restraint of a homocidal person might also require some level of violence. Being tazed is violent

Self-defense can be violent, perhaps even harmful to another person...it can be a fine line between the two.

violence: swift and intense force: rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. a violent act or proceeding. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language

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

We will have to agree to disagree here. Grace is abundant and free and given as needed where needed and it is not bound to the liturgy, the eucharist or a prayer offered. I hold it is "A" means, not "THE" means. I think you deep down agree with me, but find the liturgy as your preferred means.

[Ryan Scott]

But if there is more than two choices, then violence must be included. Otherwise the choice is ALWAYS non-violent. Violence can come in many forms. Active restraint of a suicidal person may require some level of violence to prevent self-murder. Active restraint of a homocidal person might also require some level of violence. Being tazed is violent

Self-defense can be violent, perhaps even harmful to another person...it can be a fine line between the two.

violence: swift and intense force: rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. a violent act or proceeding. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language

I addressed that. Violence (in some form) is often our choice - not because it's the right choice, but because it's the best one we can come up with at the moment. Violence is a result of our creative failure. There is a difference between allowing for violence and condoning it as proper.

[Ryan Scott]

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.

If someone's ideas are wrong because they lack moral integrity in some area then none of us has any right to talk about anything.

[Benjamin Burch]

But if there is more than two choices, then violence must be included. Otherwise the choice is ALWAYS non-violent. Violence can come in many forms. Active restraint of a suicidal person may require some level of violence to prevent self-murder. Active restraint of a homocidal person might also require some level of violence. Being tazed is violent

Self-defense can be violent, perhaps even harmful to another person...it can be a fine line between the two.

violence: swift and intense force: rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. a violent act or proceeding. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language


We will have to agree to disagree here. Grace is abundant and free and given as needed where needed and it is not bound to the liturgy, the eucharist or a prayer offered. I hold it is "A" means, not "THE" means. I think you deep down agree with me, but find the liturgy as your preferred means.

No, the liturgy, and the sacraments are God's "normative" means of grace.

[Benjamin Burch]

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"?

All of them must be reinterpreted in light of the cross and resurrection. They are not "real" as you read them. Nope. Absolutely not. Never have been. But I'd rather just not discuss it with you, since it will be a horrendous waste of both of our time.

[Benjamin Burch]

If someone's ideas are wrong because they lack moral integrity in some area then none of us has any right to talk about anything.

This.

[Hans Deventer]

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"?

What I said, He doesn't use violence to protect us (that is the argument, as you no doubt read) and btw, it is always HIS to avenge, nobody denies that. So what are you saying exactly?

[Hans Deventer]

If someone's ideas are wrong because they lack moral integrity in some area then none of us has any right to talk about anything.

Nobody but the Pharisees. "‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’"

[Jim Chabot]

If someone's ideas are wrong because they lack moral integrity in some area then none of us has any right to talk about anything.

No, it goes far beyond that. As I read these two, and I'll admit that I don't get very far before disgust overcomes me, I notice rather quickly where their shared hedonism and narcissism clearly affects their slant on pacifism. While I'll admit that I cannot know their hearts, I must say that both of their writings exhibit a strong sense of self interest.

Although I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand, or John Piper, I am familiar with the almost visceral reaction that the mention of their names produce on naznet. So lets not bandy around empty platitudes in defense of Yoder and Haeuwas, until you folks are ready to accept Rand and Piper. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should accept Rand and Piper, I don't know enough about either one of them to make that argument. But Yoder and Haerwas? Give me a break!

[Jim Chabot]

All of them must be reinterpreted in light of the cross and resurrection. They are not "real" as you read them. Nope. Absolutely not. Never have been. But I'd rather just not discuss it with you, since it will be a horrendous waste of both of our time.

Same here Ben. You would most assuredly be wasting your time with me. While the thought process whereby we reinterpret things in light of Jesus teaching is quite valid. Most times what I hear from the re-interpreters is mere repetition of the folly and error of the very leaders that Jesus condemned. They just do it in the other direction. You know, Jesus says that we should adjust our view by say six inches and we say, "Oh good, I get it, I'll adjust my view by 24 inches, that will be better right?"

But you already know that.

[Jim Chabot]

Nobody but the Pharisees. "‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’"

Easy answer, but I think you know me better than that.

[Jim Chabot]

What I said, He doesn't use violence to protect us (that is the argument, as you no doubt read) and btw, it is always HIS to avenge, nobody denies that. So what are you saying exactly?

I think that He does. While I'm not sure if I could convince you that the flood was a form of protection. I can see His hand of protection as He aided the Israelites in battle. I can see His hand of protection as He used heathen nations to carry Israel away protecting them from the sin which would surely consume them.

David was well aware of this principle as he wrote in Psalm 59 of His desire to be protected from his enemies, ending his discourse with the awareness that God's protection would "consume them in thy wrath so that they be no more."

I'm sure that I could come up with many other examples, but I'm not interested in a pitched battle, nor in proving you wrong. I can give space for pacifism, yet space must be reserved for those who do not embrace it. Our tent is most definitely that big.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm sure that I could come up with many other examples, but I'm not interested in a pitched battle, nor in proving you wrong. I can give space for pacifism, yet space must be reserved for those who do not embrace it. Our tent is most definitely that big.

Ben stated something, I agreed, you are vehemently attacking us all the time. I myself have clearly written that I allow for space. I wonder, Jim, are you allowing for space? Or should I start writing that I'm about to throw up about your remarks, like you apparently are about mine? Is that the kind of language we need here? It is time for the mirror, brother. A good and long look in it.

[Jim Chabot]

Ben stated something, I agreed, you are vehemently attacking us all the time. I myself have clearly written that I allow for space. I wonder, Jim, are you allowing for space?

Most assuredly I am. In fact I just said so. Isn't my word good enough? I did thank you for your post where you said that you give space.

Or should I start writing that I'm about to throw up about your remarks, like you apparently are about mine?

Actually you used to say that quite often, and I'm glad to see that we have improved our communication since then. I have no problem with your remarks, none whatsoever. I'll gladly let you believe and give you space to do so. While at the same time, I agree with Marcus on this. I see many instances throughout scripture where God protects by means of violence and I see nothing that mitigates this principle in scripture. I'm just stating my view the same as you are stating yours.

And please take note that both myself and Marcus limited our observations for brevity and in hopes of avoiding a pitched battle. What would you rather have? Should we present case after case ad infinitum, and produce yet another mile long thread? The information is there to produce one, I don't believe that either of us has come to our view by way of seductive preaching, whim or fancy.

Is that the kind of language we need here?

Your going to need to help me out here, I'm honestly missing what you are saying. I do see where Ryan responded to my criticism of Yoder and Hauerwas with a bit of a backhanded slap and then you called me a pharisee. I fail to see where I responded in kind. If I have, I'll apologize.

[Hans Deventer]

Your going to need to help me out here, I'm honestly missing what you are saying. I do see where Ryan responded to my criticism of Yoder and Hauerwas with a bit of a backhanded slap and then you called me a pharisee.

Only if you think one's ideas are wrong if one doesn't live up to them. It's up to you to decide if the statement fits you. I sure hope it does not. If so, I'd need to stop preaching, as would anyone. Ryan is totally correct here.

I'm just stating my view the same as you are stating yours.

Until? Please answer that question. I get the impression there is no end to it.

[Jim Chabot]

Only if you think one's ideas are wrong if one doesn't live up to them. It's up to you to decide if the statement fits you. I sure hope it does not. If so, I'd need to stop preaching, as would anyone. Ryan it totally correct here.

I'm sorry, but I thought that I clarified that. My criticism of these two is by reason of how I see their flawed behavior influencing their views. I believe this is a valid criticism. For instance lets take the example of a greedy person who writes about capitalism. As one reads, they notice that this person's greed is influencing their view. This is what I see in these two. While I'll admit that I haven't read much of them because I became offended as I sensed that which I felt motivated them.

Yes of course Ryan is right, but not in this particular case. I have no problem with folks expressing views that they are unable to live up to. My difficulty is with folks who attempt to forward their views based upon an agenda whereby they justify their failings.

Until? Please answer that question. I get the impression there is no end to it.

Well of course there is no end to it, why would there be? Isn't that what we mean by granting space? You share your view with no end in sight and I do the same, and we do our best not to bother each other about it. I haven't entertained that you or Ben will change your view, or cease talking about it, why would you entertain the thought that I would. Honestly this should not be bothering you at all, we need to grant space.

Now if you are thinking that there should be an end, ok I'll agree to this. However we aren't giving each other space as we do this because you must also cease to promulgate your ideas that are contrary to the ones I agree to cease. We are on equal footing here, yet another premise that must be observed as we give each other space. You can not stand on a step above mine, nor can I stand above you.

[Mike Schutz]

This is a host's post.

We have gotten far off track here.
The thoughts offered in the initial post are worthy of our consideration.

Try to stay on point.

[Jim Chabot]

This is a host's post.

We have gotten far off track here.
The thoughts offered in the initial post are worthy of our consideration.

Try to stay on point.

I'm missing something then. This was part of the original post. My take is that this is theology, and not ontology, I've stated this from the beginning. I thought that's what we have been discussing.

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.

I'm not trying to be combative, while at the same time we aren't lemmings are we?

[Bob Hunter]

This is a host's post.

We have gotten far off track here.
The thoughts offered in the initial post are worthy of our consideration.

Try to stay on point.

I'll respond to Mike, but my response is also directed toward Hans,

I read every post in this thread tis morning, and it is a valid discussion. I hope there is a productive and fruitful discussion here. I actually agree with Ben's premise and I lean toward pacifism as a natural expression of the gospel. But I share Cam's and Jim's concern mildly. I see an all or nothing proposition seeping through many of these threads. I've also noticed that some of staunches advocates of non-violence on this site can be very aggressive and borderline violent in how they throw their intellectual weight around. I've watched some of our moderators defend and even participate in such activities. I've even received personal messages from moderators claiming I am irrational and pretty much off my rocker! I'm just saying this at the risk of being deleted (has happened before because as there is a double standard on NN) that we need to think about how these threads progress. Not saying I'm completely innocent here, I've failed to walk away from a fight or two, but I just thought Cam's point needed to be reinforced. And I'm not defending Jim's view, it may have some validity, but at least give him a chance to express it without the implied notion that his view is not gospel.

Just my two cents worth fellas.

[Dale Cozby]

Bob,
What I see in this thread and in others before it is we are often discussinig what is righteous and what is covered by grace(missing the mark).

Those who aredivinely enlightened righteous do not need the amount grace(for missing the mark) that the ignorant unrighteous need.
It feels as if those who support pacifism are subtly suggesting that those less enlightened to the philosophy of pacifism as Christlikeness need more grace for thier ignorance and sins since they are less righteous than pacifists.
Although the pacifist may readily admit his/her need for grace they also claim a higher moral ground because they are more righteous than non-pacifists. This air of superior righteousness that becomes more like what Hans quote about the Pharisee. An attitude of superior righteousness requiring less grace is what rubs us all the wrong way, whether we are pacifist, partially pacifist, or otherwise.

[Jim Chabot]

This is a host's post.

We have gotten far off track here.
The thoughts offered in the initial post are worthy of our consideration.

Try to stay on point.

I've been thinking on this a bit and I'm finding that I need some clarification. It has been said that I have been vehement in my opposition. And while I must admit to the possibility of this appearance, I can say that nothing could be further from the truth. As I posted here, my thoughts were more of amusement than anything else, I'll admit that my opposition was spirited, but surely not vehement. Granted that I think that Yoder and Haerwas are a couple of creeps, but so what! I have clarified what I find objectionable in their writings and I have been careful not to be overly critical of them. Yet for some strange reason, this seems to be pricking the hair on some folks necks, or maybe it's just my imagination?

But let me cut to the chase here and repost one of the sections of the original post to which I voiced a different opinion.

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.

I've bolded a few words here and there in an attempt to diagram where my thoughts are going as I move from the position of spirited but generally amicable disagreement to the place where I think I'm somewhat offended. So here goes;

As we talk about Ontology and its clear and unambiguous connection to what is real, we are stating an absolute. When we say that something is actually the reality of Christ's manifestation in our lives, we are also saying by necessity that those who do not share this reality are not mature Christians at the very least, or not Christians at all. When we say that something is the reality of Christianity, then we clearly state that all must share this or they share not Christ.

Don't get me wrong, if we talk about this as theology, then no problem, everybody has a right to an opinion and I haven't read any here that would disturb me or cause me to worry about the other persons salvation or anything like that. It's all good and while I might not agree, I'm not bothered at all to her where the other guy is coming from. But if this is actually Ontology, then no stop the presses!

Am I missing something here? Is my logic somehow flawed? Because while I don't believe that Ben would intentionally say that we are not Christian, I do believe that he is definitely saying this in his initial post. Lets get this straightened out guys, I'm thinking that I was far better off before I actually thought about and realized what the thoughts offered in the initial post actually meant.

[Bob Hunter]

Bob,
What I see in this thread and in others before it is we are often discussinig what is righteous and what is covered by grace(missing the mark).

Those who aredivinely enlightened righteous do not need the amount grace(for missing the mark) that the ignorant unrighteous need.
It feels as if those who support pacifism are subtly suggesting that those less enlightened to the philosophy of pacifism as Christlikeness need more grace for thier ignorance and sins since they are less righteous than pacifists.
Although the pacifist may readily admit his/her need for grace they also claim a higher moral ground because they are more righteous than non-pacifists. This air of superior righteousness that becomes more like what Hans quote about the Pharisee. An attitude of superior righteousness requiring less grace is what rubs us all the wrong way, whether we are pacifist, partially pacifist, or otherwise.

Pacifism does not mean someone is immune from showing aggression verbally, subtly or passively. This is one area where I actually think the Concerned Nazarenes have a valid point. The "love" and "pacificism" crowd in the CotN treated them very unlovingly (sadly, that may have included me). I just think it needs to be recognized for what it is. There is definitely some hostility over here and the bottom line is, we need to clean up our act.

[Jim Chabot]

Pacifism does not mean someone is immune from showing aggression verbally, subtly or passively. This is one area where I actually think the Concerned Nazarenes have a valid point. The "love" and "pacificism" crowd in the CotN treated them very unlovingly (sadly, that may have included me). I just think it needs to be recognized for what it is. There is definitely some hostility over here and the bottom line is, we need to clean up our act.

Hey Bob; Can I tell you something? I'm a concerned Nazarene. And I think that your a real good guy! I've really enjoyed your passion and honesty in dealing with incredibly hard topics that usually don't get discussed. Your approach to the way we have gone wrong in the area of men's ministry has been a real blessing to me.

This has got nothing to do with this thread at all, and I'm not commenting on your post. Just thought that you out to know.

[Ryan Scott]

Yes of course Ryan is right, but not in this particular case. I have no problem with folks expressing views that they are unable to live up to. My difficulty is with folks who attempt to forward their views based upon an agenda whereby they justify their failings.

You have your right to this opinion, I suppose, but it does't negate the ideas themselves, since they're held by many, many others as well.

It also seems odd that one could conclude an idealistic perspective of non-violence that basically indicts everyone, author included, could be viewed as justifying failings of any kind.

It may be true and I may not understand your perspective, but from my perspective, an opinion that justifies the basest of human instincts (violence) is at least as worthy of the same criticism, isn't it?

[Mike Schutz]

I'm missing something then. This was part of the original post. My take is that this is theology, and not ontology, I've stated this from the beginning. I thought that's what we have been discussing.



I'm not trying to be combative, while at the same time we aren't lemmings are we?

Sorry - I should have been more clear.

It would help the focus of the conversation if ALL of us would stop the "I'm being disrespected," and the "How dare you talk to me that way" posts.

And we would not need such posts quite so often if WE ALL would take a little bit more time in editing our responses, reconsidering what could possibly be seen as personal attacks - although I'm sure no one ever means them that way.

(At this moment we recognize that ALL of us are expressing non-verbals of "Whaaat, me? I don't do that.")

A suggestion, that I am also giving myself. If you feel personally attacked - walk away for a bit. Then come back, and return the focus to the discussion, not to how you feel disrespected. Assume that the person was not purposely attacking your character or intelligence, and let it slide.

This is the theology forum, and we all recognize that there will be disagreements, and occasionally strong ones. We also recognize that there are inherent weaknesses in our mode of communication. And since non-verbal winks and nods are how we soften our tone when we are together, and we do not have them available to us, the words we choose must be chosen well.

If this sounds like I am trying to be a schoolmarm, perhaps. But some of you have asked me to jump in here. I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable, and in fact that is one of the most powerful illustrations of our holiness theology. It would be nice if it were reflected more often here.

[Hans Deventer]

I'll respond to Mike, but my response is also directed toward Hans.

I'm happy to respond, but are you sure this post doesn't already answer your question? http://www.naznet.com/community/show...l=1#post122361

[Jon Bemis]

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.

Just for clarification - are you saying that the physical resurrection of Christ wasn't neccessarily an historical event? I think I understand the part about the larger reality - just wanted to better understand your starting point.

[Hans Deventer]

Bob,
What I see in this thread and in others before it is we are often discussinig what is righteous and what is covered by grace(missing the mark).

Those who aredivinely enlightened righteous do not need the amount grace(for missing the mark) that the ignorant unrighteous need.
It feels as if those who support pacifism are subtly suggesting that those less enlightened to the philosophy of pacifism as Christlikeness need more grace for thier ignorance and sins since they are less righteous than pacifists.
Although the pacifist may readily admit his/her need for grace they also claim a higher moral ground because they are more righteous than non-pacifists. This air of superior righteousness that becomes more like what Hans quote about the Pharisee. An attitude of superior righteousness requiring less grace is what rubs us all the wrong way, whether we are pacifist, partially pacifist, or otherwise.

What a nonsense. I can't live one minute without grace. The only superiority I have is that i might very well be a bigger sinner than you, and the gap between my beliefs and my actions is wider than your gap. That's my superiority for you. My lacking in living up to my beliefs will judge me more.

But I'm still entitled to my views, as much as people here are trying to ridicule them.

[Cam Pence]

Bob,
What I see in this thread and in others before it is we are often discussinig what is righteous and what is covered by grace(missing the mark).

Those who aredivinely enlightened righteous do not need the amount grace(for missing the mark) that the ignorant unrighteous need.
It feels as if those who support pacifism are subtly suggesting that those less enlightened to the philosophy of pacifism as Christlikeness need more grace for thier ignorance and sins since they are less righteous than pacifists.
Although the pacifist may readily admit his/her need for grace they also claim a higher moral ground because they are more righteous than non-pacifists. This air of superior righteousness that becomes more like what Hans quote about the Pharisee. An attitude of superior righteousness requiring less grace is what rubs us all the wrong way, whether we are pacifist, partially pacifist, or otherwise.

After reading the replies to my original post, especially Ben, I don't think I would take it this far. I cannot reconcile that with Ben's honest response:

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."

and

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.

While the whole debate has gotten way out of hand and I believe that it has become problematic that this non essential has been raised to the status of essential by some, I can say, especially in the responses to my original posts, I have felt more grace in this problematic issue than in other non essential issues that get raised to the essential status (7 day creation, PSA, ect.). Long story short, the answers I have relieved do not make me feel that the proponents of pacifism (here on Naznet anyway) take it to this extreme.

[Jim Chabot]

You have your right to this opinion, I suppose, but it does't negate the ideas themselves, since they're held by many, many others as well.

Maybe, I haven't read them enough to mount a full frontal assault on what they have said, nor do I have any desire to do so. My issue began when I could see narcissism creep into their opinions.

It also seems odd that one could conclude an idealistic perspective of non-violence that basically indicts everyone, author included, could be viewed as justifying failings of any kind.

Depends upon how you look at it. While I can certainly respect honorable pacifists, like Steve Martinez who literally threw himself into a very dangerous situation to protect his mother. My respect is profound when I hear of this kind of pacifism.

But lets be honest, there are also pacifists who are nothing more than self justified cowards who possess no love except for themselves. I cannot muster up even the slightest respect for these folks. I can respect a coward, I understand how fear can cripple a person, I've been crippled by fear myself. But I cannot respect someone who justifies their cowardice in the name of pacifism. I'm not casting aspersions on anyone at this point, rather I'm saying that we must acknowledge that these people exist much in the same way that I will acknowledge that some non-pacifists attempt to justify their violence.

It may be true and I may not understand your perspective, but from my perspective, an opinion that justifies the basest of human instincts (violence) is at least as worthy of the same criticism, isn't it?

Yes most absolutely. I'll repeat myself, there are some who reject pacifism because they wish to justify their own propensity toward violence. This should be soundly condemned. Violence should only be used when absolutely necessary and even then with a great deal of sadness.

[Bob Hunter]

What a nonsense. I can't live one minute without grace. The only superiority I have is that i might very well be a bigger sinner than you, and the gap between my beliefs and my actions is wider than your gap. That's my superiority for you. My lacking in living up to my beliefs will judge me more.

But I'm still entitled to my views, as much as people here are trying to ridicule them.

Isn't this exactly what Mike is trying to address?

[Hans Deventer]

Isn't this exactly what Mike is trying to address?

I have no idea. But if it helps you folks I'll shut up and keep silent about what I think.

[Jim Chabot]

But I'm still entitled to my views, as much as people here are trying to ridicule them.

We may very well have a communication issue here. No one is trying to ridicule your views, not at all.

Disagreement does not rise to ridicule, please try to see this in a different light. Honestly we should be able to hold to opposing yet completely non essential views on this.

Again, this is theology, not ontology, right?

[Ryan Scott]

But lets be honest, there are also pacifists who are nothing more than self justified cowards who possess no love except for themselves. I cannot muster up even the slightest respect for these folks. I can respect a coward, I understand how fear can cripple a person, I've been crippled by fear myself. But I cannot respect someone who justifies their cowardice in the name of pacifism. I'm not casting aspersions on anyone at this point, rather I'm saying that we must acknowledge that these people exist much in the same way that I will acknowledge that some non-pacifists attempt to justify their violence.

Yeah, they absolutely exist. It's one of the reasons I never gave pacifism a second thought - until I read the very guys you've denigrated here. They aren't these kids of pacifists - and in fact have rejected the word because of those connotations. Hauerwas is one of the foremost proponents of creative, non-violent action. He ironically borders on the violent in his treatment of cowards who do nothing when action is necessary.

People who advocate running away or standing still in the face of evil aren't pacifists and their opinions just don't make it into the academic sphere. I'm not saying it doesn't sound a bit insane at times and utterly unrealistic - but when I hear the real stories of people who have engaged in creative responses to violence, the actual stuff that works at times is itself insane and unrealistic - it still works (at least in those instances).

Yes most absolutely. I'll repeat myself, there are some who reject pacifism because they wish to justify their own propensity toward violence. This should be soundly condemned. Violence should only be used when absolutely necessary and even then with a great deal of sadness.

Amen.

[Jim Chabot]

Ok, I am totally wrong, despicable, have no right what soever to my views and have been an arrogant bastard all the time. Is that better? Happy now?

No, no, a thousand times no. I have met you, you are a good, decent and kind man. Nothing said here takes away from that opinion that I hold concerning you.

Surely we must be experiencing difficulty communicating.

If it takes a couple of thousand words, I'll stick it out until we understand each other.

I hear what you were trying to say in your response to Dale. I can also see where it could come across as quite caustic, yet I am reminded that english it not your first language. We need to try harder.

I'm not sure how to describe this. My take on your response to Dale was that you feel no superiority whatsoever and that perhaps he mistook your humility for arrogance. That was what I read, using the filter of what I know of you.

Yet in plainly read english, I must say that your response comes off as angry and terse. It comes across as from someone who is enraged that they have been questioned.

I really think that we need to try harder.

[Ryan Scott]

While the whole debate has gotten way out of hand and I believe that it has become problematic that this non essential has been raised to the status of essential by some, I can say, especially in the responses to my original posts, I have felt more grace in this problematic issue than in other non essential issues that get raised to the essential status (7 day creation, PSA, ect.). Long story short, the answers I have relieved do not make me feel that the proponents of pacifism (here on Naznet anyway) take it to this extreme.

Because it is essential. Maybe not the specifics of pacifism, but the ideal of peace and non-violence as the Christ-like way of life. If that wasn't accomplished in Christ, then there's no point in engaging the world. If we're not, as Christians, living into a different story in this world, what is the point of faith.

I agree with Jim when he says:

I'll repeat myself, there are some who reject pacifism because they wish to justify their own propensity toward violence. This should be soundly condemned. Violence should only be used when absolutely necessary and even then with a great deal of sadness.

Love is our general orientation, an orientation that has and will redeem the world. That is what changed in Christ. The idea that loving our enemies, even if it costs our own life - is the example Christ gave us. That is how the thread began - that this is the reality of life, our ontology, if we really accept the resurrection.

When we move to the issue of when to respond in violence it becomes trickier, because we're human beings with faults and failures. As Christians we believe violence is not the answer, but some times we lack imagination and creativity to supply any other answers - in those times we regrettably turn to violence. We do so with sorrow and with the profound hope that a loving God understands.

We may disagree on when violence becomes our regrettable response - and those are good debates to have, but I do think a rejection of violence as righteous is an essential part of following Christ.

[Jim Chabot]

Because it is essential. Maybe not the specifics of pacifism, but the ideal of peace and non-violence as the Christ-like way of life. If that wasn't accomplished in Christ, then there's no point in engaging the world. If we're not, as Christians, living into a different story in this world, what is the point of faith.

Easy Ryan, don't go there. This is the fundamental problem running through this thread. This absolutely cannot be essential, we allow for both views.

While I respect your position, I must maintain that wrath is an essential component of love. That is my position and I believe that I am entitled to hold that position within the CoTN, the same as I recognize you right to hold yours.

We cannot make this essential or ontological, for if we do so then you must declare that I am not Christian. I'm hoping that you aren't ready to do that.

[Ryan Pugh]

While I respect your position, I must maintain that wrath is an essential component of love.

I think this is the key to your post and stance on this. I would agree that God's wrath (not sure what that always looks like) is a part of God's love. But don't Jesus' words, life, and death call us to a non-violent, "non-wrathful" love for all people, including our enemies and those causing injustice? I'm trying to understand you here, Jim.

If following Christ means taking up our cross, what does that mean?

[Ryan Scott]

Easy Ryan, don't go there. This is the fundamental problem running through this thread. This absolutely cannot be essential, we allow for both views.

I think my biggest problem is that I'm not sure what "both" views are we're holding here.

This is what I take to be essential to Christianity:

We may disagree on when violence becomes our regrettable response - and those are good debates to have, but I do think a rejection of violence as righteous is an essential part of following Christ.

[Hans Deventer]

Easy Ryan, don't go there. This is the fundamental problem running through this thread. This absolutely cannot be essential, we allow for both views.

It is absolutely essential, that's the very premise with which how this all started and that got me accused of arrogance and Lord knows what.

At the same time, in the CotN and on NazNet, we allow for both views for we are not fundies that kick everybody out we don't agree with. Hopefully, I have to add