Not to be sophomoric but what about the recalcitrant and unrepentant lyncher that simply refuses to be moved or have his moral conscious engaged? Continues to lynch with abandon?
For these God often utilizes government, but not always and sometimes other things.
Again, not to be needling but can you think of other instances of God using other things to stop something like a 'serial lyncher'.
I have another question - related but quite different: Do you believe the violent death at the hands of the worldly powers was necessary to accomplish Christ's salvific purposes?
Old age? Cancer? Being gored by a bull? A vigilante? Falling down and breaking a leg? A chance of heart?
I'm not sure about the second question, possibly because it's not clear to me how it is related. In general God is playing 3 dimensional chess while the powers of darkness are in 2 dimensions, so he is able to turn their evil against them.
barnhart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:54 am
For these God often utilizes government, but not always and sometimes other things.
Again, not to be needling but can you think of other instances of God using other things to stop something like a 'serial lyncher'.
In a sense, appealing to violence appropriated by "certain men" (the state) to offer salvation for the problems of violence (serial lynching), begs the question because those same "certain" men are also serially violent. Are they? All of them? This seems like a sweeping generalization.Who polices the police? BLM?The truth is violence merely begets violence.So stopping a violent act and putting that violent person in prison necessarily creates more criminals?You can't drive out darkness with darkness. Or violence with violence. Or hate with hate. You can only drive out darkness with light and hate with love. Who's asking about driving out the darkness from a secular government's perspective? That is the role of the Church (nonviolently of course). The question is only about whether or not a state has a God-ordained purpose in maintaining order or peace and punishing evildoers.
Some would say there are compelling reasons to consider that the state has been the biggest purveyor of serial violence...not because they are "worse" but because they control the use of violence by monopoly. Empires are empires because they appropriate violence to protect the interests of the empowered.
Am I to be bothered or surprised by this?
I don't think any of us "approve" of state violence - as though our approval is a requisite for their use of it. I agree with your statements as quoted above with the exception of some that I bolded and inserted comments. In the end though I see nothing redemptive about the use of violence. In a fallen world though, one in which man is twisted and often as not will do evil if he can get away with it; what backstops does a community have for someone like a serial rapist? If a person refuses moral suasion, the love of neighbor and God, Light & Truth and continues to rape with wanton abandon; what recourses are left? How are we to love his/her future victims? That' not question begging, that's dealing with real-life scenarios and living in a polity that isn't Christian. I'd appreciate a response beyond a dismissal of the question itself.
barnhart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:54 am
For these God often utilizes government, but not always and sometimes other things.
Again, not to be needling but can you think of other instances of God using other things to stop something like a 'serial lyncher'.
I have another question - related but quite different: Do you believe the violent death at the hands of the worldly powers was necessary to accomplish Christ's salvific purposes?
Old age? Cancer? Being gored by a bull? A vigilante? Falling down and breaking a leg? A chance of heart?
This seems like a flippant remark and not dealing with the reality of how secular authorities can properly and justly deal with violent criminals who seek to hurt and mame.
Josh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:17 pm
It doesn’t sidestep it. The Anabaptist position is that it is not possible to reconcile following Jesus’ teachings whilst simultaneously bearing the sword.
The Catholic position is that it is possible, so I would advise those who think they have a duty to do both to consider a different religion than plain Anabaptism. (Of course, I will still evangelise all that should join up with Plan A and lay down the sword.)
If you choose to live in a society in which state sponsored violence, or the threat of it, exists through the police force, military, and criminal justice system. Then you are responsible, in part, for how that violence is applied and under what limits it is used. Even if you, yourself, do not "bear the sword"
Two kingdom theology is all well and good. But even the Amish live simultaneously in both worlds.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:24 pm
And those of us who live in "Plan A" must need recognise that as long as anyone still exists who is not an Anabaptist, we must need depend on "Plan B" to engage in violence in order for us to have any chance of living in peace.
I really have trouble understanding this belief. It seems to make the violence of others a fundamental precondition for your peace.
joey_the_ox wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:22 pmFinally, are these the only two kingdoms in your picture? If so, are you comfortable making "the sword" the dividing line between those two?
Yes, I understand laying down the sword to be part of "mere Christianity" or "orthodox Christianity". I understand Christians for the first three centuries also believed this.
First, "mere Christianity" does not exist (I say this with apologies to C.S. Lewis, but he got this wrong.)
Second, if you do believe that "the sword" is the dividing line between "orthodox" and "non-orthodox" Christianity, and seeing that I am on the other side of that line, what positive argument(s) would you put forward for your position? (The "first three centuries" thing is a bit of a red herring, as we established in another thread that this reduces to "the New Testament.")
Josh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:24 pm
And those of us who live in "Plan A" must need recognise that as long as anyone still exists who is not an Anabaptist, we must need depend on "Plan B" to engage in violence in order for us to have any chance of living in peace.
I really have trouble understanding this belief. It seems to make the violence of others a fundamental precondition for your peace.
I guess I’m not understanding why this is problematic.
1. We live in a fallen and violent world.
2. Violence is quotidian and banal insofar as it’s simply everywhere all the time and will be until the return of Christ.
3. It makes perfect sense that one of the animating features of government would be to try and limit the ability of individuals to prey upon their neighbors.
4. Followers of Christ say there’s a different way to live and we refuse to participate in either individual violence or the collective use of coercion to stop it.
5. By checking out of the system we can be salt and light to our neighbors and take advantage of those things that the collective action of the government does well.
.. Countries with No Military
According to the CIA World Factbook, 36 countries and territories do not have a military.
Per the CIA’s definition, several of these states do not have a “regular military force,” but their national police forces act as de facto military forces.
For example, Costa Rica’s Public Forces of Costa Rica are responsible for protecting their country’s borders.
joey_the_ox wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:22 pmIf they choose to stay in Kingdom B, then by what standard would you judge whether or not they fulfilled their role?
Like I said earlier, I don't know how God decides to deal with those who bear the sword and I'm glad I'm not called to judge.
But you do judge (or at least I am very, very sure that you do)! I'm pretty sure that both you and Josh have an implicit moral framework that you apply to the violent actions of others. I don't know anyone who would say that all violent actions are intrinsically equivalent.