The Myth of Redemptive Violence

[JohnH]

Boot, you don’t think taxes are enforced with coercion?

If I don’t pay my payroll taxes or sales taxes I will be subject to a judgment lien and possibly criminal prosecution.

If I don’t pay my property taxes, the sheriff will show up and forcibly remove me from my home.

If I don’t pay my personal income taxes, I will end up with a judgment lien.

If I don’t pay that judgment lien, the sheriff will show up and remove me from my home.

How do you think taxation works? It’s not voluntary. People pay it because they are forced to do so.

[Bootstrap]

Boot, you don’t think taxes are enforced with coercion?

If I don’t pay my payroll taxes or sales taxes I will be subject to a judgment lien and possibly criminal prosecution.

If I don’t pay my property taxes, the sheriff will show up and forcibly remove me from my home.

If I don’t pay my personal income taxes, I will end up with a judgment lien.

If I don’t pay that judgment lien, the sheriff will show up and remove me from my home.

How do you think taxation works? It’s not voluntary. People pay it because they are forced to do so.

That's not the part I disagree with.

I think the government is given the sword in Romans 13. That does not mean that everything the government does as "God's servant" is wrong, or that everything it does is a form of violence. If someone in government saves children from a burning building, isn't that a good thing? Unambiguously? Even if you do pay taxes to make that possible?

Some people seem to think that the government is best when it is most violent and most threatening. That we need a government that will do that to "them". And some of the same people are very upset when the government does things to help people, especially "them".

Romans 13 tells us to respect and honor our government, to submit to it, to pay the obligations that are due. That's the attitude the Bible tells us to take. The Bible does not tell us to use the government as a weapon against "them", whatever enemies we have. The New Testament is quite clear about how we should relate to our enemies.

As Christians, we have the ministry of reconciliation.

[ken_sylvania]

How about you check, and if you find where someone has made that claim then by all means point it out.

I did, pages ago. It got lost in all the noise. Original message here, from Mike:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 94#p300794

JohnH posted in a way that I thought was in support of Mike's understanding:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 13#p300813

I responded to say that I disagree with that analysis:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 15#p300815

Ken replied to my response to say this:

What is your basis for concluding that the conclusions of the "it's all just violence" argument is absurd? Is that based on testing against God's word, or against human reasoning?

Perhaps each of you could clarify what you meant in the referenced posts?

Mike, JohnH, Ken?

P.S. Mike already clarified here:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 49#p300849

And he identifies an important tension. Even when government acts as God's servant, it can do it in ways that we cannot participate in.

Your claim, is that folks in this thread have been espousing a theology that says anything the government does is a form of violence because it is paid for with taxes. Your words.

There's a modern theology that equates taxes with violence and says anything the government does is actually a form of violence because it is paid for with taxes. This theology is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

You claim that Mike expressed that view in the post you linked to above, and that JohnH agreed with him. However, Mike disclaimed that perspective specifically.

I don't think I said anything about taxation? My point is that the existence of any government at all is by definition. predicated upon their wielding of the sword. Yes, there are degrees in which they are heavy-handed or abusive with that power, but in the end, they all carry guns.

My friend, YOU have been putting words in other people's mouths and reinterpreting their posts to say something that they aren't saying. Mike said that even the "good" things that the government does are enabled by its power to use force. He did NOT say that the use of tax money to do these things is what turns them into a form of violence.

[ken_sylvania]

I still don't know what you're trying to communicate here. Are you referring to when I said it seems to me that you don't think governments today have to follow all OT commands, just some of them? Or something different. Because you are saying that we can know gratuitous violence is prohibited because God criticized rulers for it in the OT, so you obviously think some OT commands have to be followed by governments today. And it would surprise me if you would advocate for today's government to stamp out idol worship even though God criticized OT governments for being tolerant of the worship of false gods.

"It seems to me that you ..." is often most of the energy in your responses to me. And much of the time, it does not seem to me that you understand how I think.

Why put words in my mouth? I am perfectly capable of expressing myself, and you could simply quote and respond to what I write. You usually get it wrong and try to put me on the defensive, and then I feel like you are cross examining me about something unrelated. Makes it extremely hard to actually discuss the Scripture that I just quoted or the post that I just wrote.

I think it's against forum rules, too.

If you want to free associate theology, please own it as your own thinking, not mine. If you want to understand how I interpret the Old Testament, that would take some time, and it would take a different kind of conversation.

Please feel free to point to the forum rules that you think I am violating.
I don't believe I have ever put words into your mouth. I express my own viewpoint. When you write things, I read them and then sometimes I respond and tell you how I am interpreting the words that you write.
As an analogy - let's say you draw a picture of a cow and show it to me, maybe you think it looks like a picture of a cow, but maybe I think it looks like a horse. So then I add to the picture and draw a rider on the "horse." I feel like when I do that, you get upset because you think I should have drawn the man on a stool beside the "cow" milking her. For some reason, you expect that if the drawing looks like a cow to you then everybody else should think it looks like a cow, and you get upset about any attempt by me to clarify what the drawing is supposed to be and how you determine that.

You may indeed be perfectly capable of expressing yourself, as you claim. In that case, I am apparently not capable of understanding your expressions. I have asked for clarification of your thought process numerous times in this thread and instead of answering, you attack me. I don't know why.

Let me point something out though. You said:

"It seems to me that you ..." is often most of the energy in your responses to me. And much of the time, it does not seem to me that you understand how I think.

Aren't you taking it upon yourself here to analyze and criticize my motives? You don't even say that this is how it feels - you present it as fact. For what it's worth, I do think that accusing other forum members of having bad motives is in violation of the forum rules.

Then you say:

Why put words in my mouth? I am perfectly capable of expressing myself, and you could simply quote and respond to what I write. You usually get it wrong and try to put me on the defensive, and then I feel like you are cross examining me about something unrelated. Makes it extremely hard to actually discuss the Scripture that I just quoted or the post that I just wrote.

I don't think I put words in your mouth. I do say sometimes what something looks like to me. And again, in this quoted text you accuse me of trying to put you on the defensive. That's a false accusation. It's very possible that I misunderstand what you are saying, but when I ask questions it's because I'm testing your theories and trying to make sure I understand their basis. I apparently don't do well at connecting the dots for you about how my questions are related to the topic at hand, but in my mind they are certainly related.

Has the possibility ever occurred to you that, if I usually misunderstand what you are writing, possibly you are NOT expressing yourself as perfectly as you think you are? It is, of course, very possible that I am abysmally poor at reading comprehension, but if I am not understanding what you are writing I don't see how it would help for me to quote your words verbatim if they don't mean what I think they mean.

[JohnH]

Government is obviously based on the use of force. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing though. The whole point is to have a monopoly on the use of force and then have civil, nonviolent means to regulate that use of force. Persuasion is also used - many people don’t try to mount violent tax revolts, so things work more smoothly.

[Bootstrap]

Ken, in my signature, I say this:

1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.

I think it's time to stop going around in circles. If I don't respond to a post, this may be the reason why.

If you want to discuss some specific aspect of what I think, please quote the exact thing you want me to clarify, and keep it focused. If you want to talk things out, let's find a time to talk 1:1.

[Bootstrap]

I see that I did not post this. I think this is a direct, content-based answer to a direct, content-based question, so I think it's worth posting.

Has anyone suggested what? That Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because they are used for a good purpose?

Well, somebody posted earlier in this thread that Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because governing authorities function as God's servant.

Yes, that is, in fact, what Romans 13 says. Quite literally. I don't see any way around that.

13 Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. 4 For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.

Any good interpretation of Romans 13 needs to take that into account. I used the phrase because I was quoting Paul.

[Bootstrap]

Government is obviously based on the use of force. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing though. The whole point is to have a monopoly on the use of force and then have civil, nonviolent means to regulate that use of force. Persuasion is also used - many people don’t try to mount violent tax revolts, so things work more smoothly.

Yes, I agree with that.

I prefer to live in a system that relies more on persuasion than threats. Where there is some common agreement about how to live together.

[ken_sylvania]

I see that I did not post this. I think this is a direct, content-based answer to a direct, content-based question, so I think it's worth posting.

Has anyone suggested what? That Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because they are used for a good purpose?

Well, somebody posted earlier in this thread that Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because governing authorities function as God's servant.

Yes, that is, in fact, what Romans 13 says. Quite literally. I don't see any way around that.

13 Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. 4 For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.

Any good interpretation of Romans 13 needs to take that into account. I used the phrase because I was quoting Paul.

I don't disagree with that.

Could you clarify for me what you are asking this post here? You're asking if anyone has suggested what?

Romans 13 is descriptive about government, not prescriptive, but it is prescriptive about how a Christian should interact with government. And yes, Christians should pay their taxes. But that isn't a statement about whether it's right or wrong to levy taxes on someone else.
If we're going to say that Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because they are used for a good purpose, then does it follow that we should refuse to pay taxes that will be used for anything other than "good" law enforcement?

Has anyone suggested such a thing?

[ken_sylvania]

Ken, in my signature, I say this:

1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.

I think it's time to stop going around in circles. If I don't respond to a post, this may be the reason why.

If you want to discuss some specific aspect of what I think, please quote the exact thing you want me to clarify, and keep it focused. If you want to talk things out, let's find a time to talk 1:1.

You're certainly have the right to stop discussing things at any time. I would have a lot more respect for you if you would stop before blasting me with personal attacks instead of afterward. But it is your right. I won't demand that you answer my questions.