Distinguishing Mountains from Molehills

[MattY]

Consider two hypothetical men.

One man is a member of a nonresistant church, nods firmly when his pastors speak of it, would never defend himself with a gun, and teaches his children the same. But he resents his neighbor for an old dispute about the boundary line on their property; he gets angry at drivers who cut him off on the highway; he resents another families' influence at church, in regards to the church standards, the teaching positions they hold, and so on, and he repeats gossip he heard about their children.

One man is a member of an evangelical church. He does not teach the doctrine of nonresistance, prays for members of the church who are in the army, and so on. Maybe his church has a flag set up in the corner. But he prays for another member of the church who gets under his skin, and tries to get along with him in peace. He checks up on the cranky neighbor who has ill health, and listens to her tell about her life. He donates his time and money to help the poor in his city.

Who has really kept the commandment to love your neighbor? Is the first man justified in declaring that the second man is not a brother in Christ because he doesn't understand the verses about "resist not evil" the right way?

Or consider another case. Real-life this time. An army doctor and his wife feel the call of God on their life to become medical missionaries. They hear the call to go to Nepal. They envision life in the capital city of Kathmandu, with a nice house, entertaining wealthy guests, even royalty. But then they learn the specifics. The hospital in Kathmandu does not have room for them. Instead, they are called to the little town of Amp Pipal, among the poor and illiterate, with a tiny ill-equipped hospital, in the hills, without even a road to the town. They go anyway, with a near-miraculous supply of leftover/extra/spare equipment purchased very cheaply from the army stores, and for many years they dedicate their lives to show God's love to the people of Nepal through their little mission. They hire a security guard at one point, and are not hesitant to ask the police or even Nepal's Gurkha soldiers from the capital for protection from threats, and do not teach nonresistance; yet they still love their neighbors, even those who did evil to them. I think they obeyed Christ's commandments, even if not entirely as I would have done.

(The man is Thomas Hale, and his book is Don't Let the Goats Eat the Loquat Trees. Marvelous book).

[RZehr]

Consider two hypothetical men.

One man is a member of a nonresistant church, nods firmly when his pastors speak of it, would never defend himself with a gun, and teaches his children the same. But he resents his neighbor for an old dispute about the boundary line on their property; he gets angry at drivers who cut him off on the highway; he resents another families' influence at church, in regards to the church standards, the teaching positions they hold, and so on, and he repeats gossip he heard about their children.

One man is a member of an evangelical church. He does not teach the doctrine of nonresistance, prays for members of the church who are in the army, and so on. Maybe his church has a flag set up in the corner. But he prays for another member of the church who gets under his skin, and tries to get along with him in peace. He checks up on the cranky neighbor who has ill health, and listens to her tell about her life. He donates his time and money to help the poor in his city.

Who has really kept the commandment to love your neighbor? Is the first man justified in declaring that the second man is not a brother in Christ because he doesn't understand the verses about "resist not evil" the right way?

Or consider another case. Real-life this time. An army doctor and his wife feel the call of God on their life to become medical missionaries. They hear the call to go to Nepal. They envision life in the capital city of Kathmandu, with a nice house, entertaining wealthy guests, even royalty. But then they learn the specifics. The hospital in Kathmandu does not have room for them. Instead, they are called to the little town of Amp Pipal, among the poor and illiterate, with a tiny ill-equipped hospital, in the hills, without even a road to the town. They go anyway, with a near-miraculous supply of leftover/extra/spare equipment purchased very cheaply from the army stores, and for many years they dedicate their lives to show God's love to the people of Nepal through their little mission. They hire a security guard at one point, and are not hesitant to ask the police or even Nepal's Gurkha soldiers from the capital for protection from threats, and do not teach nonresistance; yet they still love their neighbors, even those who did evil to them. I think they obeyed Christ's commandments, even if not entirely as I would have done.

(The man is Thomas Hale, and his book is Don't Let the Goats Eat the Loquat Trees. Marvelous book).

The first mans problem is not is view on nonresistance. The second mans problem is not that he takes care of the poor and neighbor.
Is it really this hard to understand? This is a straw man argument, and a false dichotomy, I think. As someone once famously said, "these ought ye have done, and not to leave the other undone."
But it sure sounds like those evangelicals don't struggle with anger, resentment, or gossip. As on evangelical friend of mine has put it, perhaps this first man just has a lot of "pent up Mennonite anger". So clearly he should just go ahead and freely lash out occasionally. Maybe if he would just drop the pesky teaching of loving ones enemies and put up a flag, he could better focus on helping his cranky neighbor, and the poor, and get along with his fellows in peace.

The first greatest commandment is to love God. The second is to love our neighbor. We are also specifically told to love our enemies. 1 John 3:15 says "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
Are love and hate opposites? If we love our enemies, can we kill them in love? Some people in Russia think so. If we love our brother, can we murder them in love? Silly.

I think killing people is sort of a big deal. Unlike a molehill.

Why this war isn't ending any time soon. Not only does Russia not want a ceasefire or truce. This is what the Russian people see every night on state TV (which is the only TV)

1:53 "We have to kill them, but not out of hatred. We should kill them out of love."
and,
2:47 " Only surgery will work there. The only response to these statements by the Nazis is a Solntsepyok (heavy thermobaric rocket launcher). It has to be burned out. Some will say, 'Oy, this is not a Christian method!' This way is quite Christian. Like the apostle, who personally slit the throats of 300 prophets of Baal! This is how we should deal with these too! Destroy them without any doubt!
and,
4:54 "The first plague was the rivers of blood. Don't we see the rivers of blood? Here they are, the rivers of blood. What was another plague? Thunder, lighting and hail (grad, in Russian). I have a feeling it was written about our Grad (rocket launcher). A Grad will destroy all the people and animals, and the fields with their crops. I don't recall it verbatim. What other plague was there? The plague of darkness, the Egyptian darkness, when Egypt was immersed into darkness for 3 days. But the Israelis had light in their homes, the Bible says. Don't we see darkness over there on a regular basis? Whenever our missiles are flying, whenever we are practicing's our strikes of vengeance, Ukraine is immersed in darkness."
and,
6:59 "When a doctor is deworming a cat, for the doctor, it's a special operation, for the worms - it's a war, and for the cat, it's a cleansing."
and,
9:40 "God is with us. We'll either win, or humanity will cease to exist. Because the Lord won't stand for the triumph of warriors of the Antichrist. We are the Lord's weapon, his avenging right hand."

[Josh]

Both men have major blind spots and dare I say sin areas.

The difference is. Both churches teach against the first man’s sins; but one of the churches doesn’t even teach that the second man’s sins are sins.

[MattY]

I think killing people is sort of a big deal. Unlike a molehill.

I thought, surely I don't have to add again that I think nonresistance important. But apparently I do. I never said it is a molehill. I've had devotions at church about how Isaac and Joseph were types of NT nonresistance/love of enemies in their lives (Isaac and the wells that were stopped up, Joseph and his brothers), based on the CLP study booklet on nonresistance.

The first mans problem is not is view on nonresistance. The second mans problem is not that he takes care of the poor and neighbor.

I never said it was.

This is a straw man argument, and a false dichotomy, I think. As someone once famously said, "these ought ye have done, and not to leave the other undone."

I never said every evangelical or every Mennonite is like the examples I gave. Goodness, no. I don't think Jesus gave a false dichotomy in his parable of the two sons. No one said, "Clearly the first son should go ahead and say no occasionally." It's an example, not a representative.

The first greatest commandment is to love God. The second is to love our neighbor. We are also specifically told to love our enemies. 1 John 3:15 says "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
Are love and hate opposites? If we love our enemies, can we kill them in love? Some people in Russia think so. If we love our brother, can we murder them in love? Silly.

I agree with all of this. There is certainly no love of Christ in the example you posted. It's devilish.

[MattY]

Basically, I think I have brothers and sisters in evangelical and Protestant churches, and I'm not going to relegate them to "the world" or "the ungodly", or act like Mennonites are better or more godly than they are. It is easy to judge someone or feel superior to them; but that's the world inside of us. We don't get closer to the world by loosening our dress standards or moving to a more liberal church, or farther away by getting more conservative: the world is still inside you, in your sin nature. We must crucify it daily. We are ALL equal at the foot of the cross. For the ones that serve in the army or law enforcement, especially for those that die while serving there, that's where I raise my hands and say, I'll let God be the judge of that, because He judges righteously.

[MattY]

Trying to move away from the discussion of nonresistance and the Trinity, and back to the four categories in my original post. Fundamentalists and liberals tend toward opposite errors. Liberals deny the existence of any first-tier issues, and make everything a third-tier issue; the result is doctrinal ambiguity. Fundamentalists tend toward the opposite error, and make every disagreement a first-tier issue. Thus eschatology, for example, is made an essential - you have to believe in the pre-tribulation rapture. And then there's, of course, the antinomian approach, which puts only a few things (like faith) in tier one, and relegates everything to no importance - denying the existence of tiers two and three.

I think "only a few salvation issues matter", and "everything that's important must be essential" are just two sides of the same coin - because everything that matters must be essential, they just disagree on how much. I think we should abandon the "coin" and be able to discuss a wide range of issues across denominational boundaries without calling each other heretics or unbelievers (this has brought reproach to Christ in church history). This means we should pursue truth for the sake of obedience, love for Christ and His word, love for fellow believers, the health of the church, and so on. We should practice love and humility toward our fellow believers who think differently, without saying that our differences don't matter.

[barnhart]

Well said MattY.

[Sudsy]

The two greatest commandments, love God, love neighbor. I don’t see how killing my neighbor is completely compatible with loving my neighbor. Seems like this would rank pretty high in “main things”.

There is also the consideration to who is our neighbour according to Jesus. Jesus had a question put to Him about inheriting eternal life found in Luke 10:25-37. We refer to it often as the story of the 'Good Samaritan'. Jesus said to obtain eternal life was in part to love your neighbour. Then the question was raised as to who is our neighbour.

From this story it can be concluded that loving one's neighbour is the people we come in contact with in our little spot in this world. We are to have mercy on those we come in contact with who have been harmed by the results of sin in this world. So, one can conclude that loving our neighbour has to do with those we come in contact with in our daily lives and whether or not we are showing them mercy by actually doing something to relieve their pain. Or are we like the religious folk who couldn't care less.

The way I see it is the killing issue that goes on in war time has nothing to do with loving our neighbour. That is a separate issue of whether or not God supports believers being involved in wars where they kill someone and what the circumstance is. I regard involvement in wars for a believer to be something that is between them and God. When it comes to killing, Jesus says we can murder others in our heart and be in danger of hell fire over it. Perhaps this is something that needs more focus as we believers may be getting pretty close to that line when we refer to one another as 'fools' or some similar implied term.

So perhaps we should focus a greater amount of our time on just how we are going about showing mercy to those around us who are being trodden down by sin. How well am I loving my neighbour as Jesus desires ? How much of a 'Good Samaritan' is obvious in my walk with God and my fellow man ? How much mercy do I have for others and their circumstances ? Or is my life mainly about myself ? If anyone is like me, there is much room for improvement and a need for more of the 'Good Samaritan' showing up in my life. That is one reason for my return to the Salvation Army as I find more encouragement by their example in their caring ways.

[Josh]

MattY, so why bother being Anabaptist at all, since you keep saying isn’t superior or closer to following Jesus than a typical evangelical with his “Trump Won in 2020” bumper sticker, complete immersion in the world save for a few hours on Sunday morning, and a lifestyle where they lose nearly all of their youth according to the latest Barna Group research?

[RZehr]

The two greatest commandments, love God, love neighbor. I don’t see how killing my neighbor is completely compatible with loving my neighbor. Seems like this would rank pretty high in “main things”.

There is also the consideration to who is our neighbour according to Jesus. Jesus had a question put to Him about inheriting eternal life found in Luke 10:25-37. We refer to it often as the story of the 'Good Samaritan'. Jesus said to obtain eternal life was in part to love your neighbour. Then the question was raised as to who is our neighbour.

From this story it can be concluded that loving one's neighbour is the people we come in contact with in our little spot in this world. We are to have mercy on those we come in contact with who have been harmed by the results of sin in this world. So, one can conclude that loving our neighbour has to do with those we come in contact with in our daily lives and whether or not we are showing them mercy by actually doing something to relieve their pain. Or are we like the religious folk who couldn't care less.

Makes sense to me.

The way I see it is the killing issue that goes on in war time has nothing to do with loving our neighbour. That is a separate issue of whether or not God supports believers being involved in wars where they kill someone and what the circumstance is. I regard involvement in wars for a believer to be something that is between them and God. When it comes to killing, Jesus says we can murder others in our heart and be in danger of hell fire over it. Perhaps this is something that needs more focus as we believers may be getting pretty close to that line when we refer to one another as 'fools' or some similar implied term.

Does not make sense to me. The Book also says to love your enemies, not just love your neighbors.
How does it make sense that murdering someone “in heart” puts one in danger of hell fire, name calling, yet literally murdering someone, is okay? “What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.”
How do we get here in our thinking?

We are to believe that as long as I am wearing certain color of clothing, and my enemy is also wearing certain special clothing, some sort of magic happens that makes killing each other acceptable to God. And we don’t hate them, we just kill them in love. Very odd how we think that clothing choices don’t ever matter, that only the heart matters, unless we wear the magic uniforms. And not only do, but if we are wearing the magic clothes, and we drop a bomb on a militant, the civilian we just killed as collateral damage suddenly do not could as murder either. And then we decide that the CIA officer who isn’t wearing a uniform, can also get a pass on assassinating a civilian target because it’s just too complicated to say it isn’t.

How about just not killing people? Seems pretty simple.

So perhaps we should focus a greater amount of our time on just how we are going about showing mercy to those around us who are being trodden down by sin. How well am I loving my neighbour as Jesus desires ? How much of a 'Good Samaritan' is obvious in my walk with God and my fellow man ? How much mercy do I have for others and their circumstances ? Or is my life mainly about myself ? If anyone is like me, there is much room for improvement and a need for more of the 'Good Samaritan' showing up in my life. That is one reason for my return to the Salvation Army as I find more encouragement by their example in their caring ways.

Makes sense to me.