Bunny Trails

[Sudsy]

to further bunny trail ..

i wrote above:
.. not to mention, after my husband passed, one nght, i had a vibrant “visitation” dream, in which he appeared, in full health, restored, healed, “in the prime of his life,” that certainly made me wonder about how things will be .. since i read of these different understandings, i have wondered further.

the dream was brief, he did not speak. the message seemed to be, “i am healed, i am fine,”
then he was gone. in the dream, i felt the sad loss a second time, “i “knew” he would not return.
his illness had completely decimated his body, to see him restored was more than i can describe.
it was unlike any dream i’ve ever had. i don’t put much value on dreams. this one caught my attention. funny, it would have been his nature to let me know he was ok. what a memory!” ..

this dream was not one i wanted.
i was overjoyed to see him so healed, he was “a vision” to behold!

but, i had accepted the loss, i trusted he was with God, i was in peace about it.
we both were, we had years together before he passed. we were at peace with it. as much as possible.

the dream (inadvertantly?) caused me to suffer a second loss, this one was hard. i wanted to be with him! either on earth or in heaven. it was unsettling. after years, i’m still unsettled by it!
however, dreams and visions, “visitations,” can be disturbing. in scriptures, weren’t they always unsettling?! they were unexpected messages of God’s will, not just fantasies of what is wanted ..

i’m duly unsettled.

at the time, i spoke to the Hospice Nurses that helped us in his last months. in 9-10 months, in and out of our home twice weekly, we got to know each other. i believe they gave me the label, “visitation dreams,” they had heard of them, for sure.

so. i just go on. i accept it as a gift. and, different from a gift.
possibly a bittersweet glimpse of what is beyond human understanding.

A buddy of mine passed away this past year and his wife had a similar dream. Well, to her it was more of a vision. Neither were church goers. I find NDEs quite interesting to read. Imo, there is sooo much we don't yet know about and likely will not until we too get home.

[PeterG]

If I recall correctly, Martin Luther King was emphatic that true pacifism is not non-resistance, but rather "non-violent resistance." Makes for at least one non-Anabaptist who understood a difference between the two terms.
I can assure you that the conservative Mennonites of Dr. King's time had no desire for their non-resistance to be confused with his pacifism.

You seem to be referring to this quotation:

My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil. Between the two positions, there is a world of difference. Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power, as Niebuhr contends. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart.

That King found it necessary to distinguish "true" pacifism from "false" pacifism, much as one might speak of "true religion," only reinforces the fact that "pacifism" is a broad term encompassing multiple specific concepts. King is addressing nonresistance as "false" pacifism. If "pacifism" were generally understood to refer to nonviolent activism, there would have been no need for King to articulate his beliefs in this way. King even indicates that he did not understand that pacifism and activism were compatible before he read Gandhi, and that Reinhold Niebuhr believed that pacifism is passive. King's statement is not about the definition of a word (it presupposes a broad definition), it is about his conception of the proper response to evil.

Why am I banging on about this? If we want to communicate in English, we need to use English words in the way that the vast majority of English speakers use them. It is right and good to distinguish our position from nonviolent political activism, but adhering to our own idiosyncratic definitions of words is not a productive way of doing so.

[ken_sylvania]

If I recall correctly, Martin Luther King was emphatic that true pacifism is not non-resistance, but rather "non-violent resistance." Makes for at least one non-Anabaptist who understood a difference between the two terms.
I can assure you that the conservative Mennonites of Dr. King's time had no desire for their non-resistance to be confused with his pacifism.

You seem to be referring to this quotation:

My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil. Between the two positions, there is a world of difference. Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power, as Niebuhr contends. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart.

That King found it necessary to distinguish "true" pacifism from "false" pacifism, much as one might speak of "true religion," only reinforces the fact that "pacifism" is a broad term encompassing multiple specific concepts. King is addressing nonresistance as "false" pacifism. If "pacifism" were generally understood to refer to nonviolent activism, there would have been no need for King to articulate his beliefs in this way. King even indicates that he did not understand that pacifism and activism were compatible before he read Gandhi, and that Reinhold Niebuhr believed that pacifism is passive. King's statement is not about the definition of a word (it presupposes a broad definition), it is about his conception of the proper response to evil.

Why am I banging on about this? If we want to communicate in English, we need to use English words in the way that the vast majority of English speakers use them. It is right and good to distinguish our position from nonviolent political activism, but adhering to our own idiosyncratic definitions of words is not a productive way of doing so.

Yes, that quote looks familiar.

It is important to use language accurately. Clarity of communication can be improved by using words that say exactly what we want to say instead of using words with a broader meaning. Because the definition of pacifism is so broad, I believe it is appropriate to use the word "nonresistance" to describe our obedience to Jesus' teaching.

I think we also want to be careful about using the term "non-violence" to describe Jesus' teaching. Even though the definitions of "non-violence" and "non-resistance" overlap, "non-violence" includes behavior that is not "non-resistant."

[ohio jones]

If I recall correctly, Martin Luther King was emphatic that true pacifism is not non-resistance, but rather "non-violent resistance." Makes for at least one non-Anabaptist who understood a difference between the two terms.
I can assure you that the conservative Mennonites of Dr. King's time had no desire for their non-resistance to be confused with his pacifism.

You seem to be referring to this quotation:

My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil. Between the two positions, there is a world of difference. Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power, as Niebuhr contends. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart.

Yes, that quote looks familiar.

It is important to use language accurately. Clarity of communication can be improved by using words that say exactly what we want to say instead of using words with a broader meaning. Because the definition of pacifism is so broad, I believe it is appropriate to use the word "nonresistance" to describe our obedience to Jesus' teaching.

John D. Martin seems to be rather close to the King quote above, though I suspect he would want to maintain some distinction from King's approach. He suggests "ideal resistance" rather than "nonresistance" as preferred terminology.

MP3 link: Christendom's Sword and the Ideal Resistance

[PeterG]

It is important to use language accurately. Clarity of communication can be improved by using words that say exactly what we want to say instead of using words with a broader meaning. Because the definition of pacifism is so broad, I believe it is appropriate to use the word "nonresistance" to describe our obedience to Jesus' teaching.

I think we also want to be careful about using the term "non-violence" to describe Jesus' teaching. Even though the definitions of "non-violence" and "non-resistance" overlap, "non-violence" includes behavior that is not "non-resistant."

I agree. (I don't think "nonresistance" is the best possible word to use for our position, but if it's the best we've got I can roll with it.) It's just that saying nonresistance isn't pacifism is like saying Anabaptism isn't Christianity because we think Anabaptism's more right than the other things people call Christianity. Sorry, I'll try to be quiet now.

John D. Martin seems to be rather close to the King quote above, though I suspect he would want to maintain some distinction from King's approach. He suggests "ideal resistance" rather than "nonresistance" as preferred terminology.

MP3 link: Christendom's Sword and the Ideal Resistance

Interesting. I'll have to listen to that.

[ken_sylvania]

... It's just that saying nonresistance isn't pacifism is like saying Anabaptism isn't Christianity because we think Anabaptism's more right than the other things people call Christianity. Sorry, I'll try to be quiet now.

I agree with your concern. And I like your example of Anabaptism vs. Christianity.

[Sudsy]

Have a nice summer everyone. For various spiritual reasons I need to drop my involvement here. Will likely return someday but not sure. Press on everyone to follow Jesus as best you can. God bless !

p.s. I will not be responding to any posts to me or regarding threads I started. It is a step I need take in my faith journey and that is all I can share at this point.

[temporal1]

peace be with you.

[Josh]

Bottom line: They believe completely unbiblical heresy. I won't go so far as to say they are unsaved, or to say that they are not Christians. But their theology is un-Christian.

What puzzles me is that the complete heresy of believing Jesus didn't really mean what he said in the Sermon on the Mount is tolerated (Christadelphians are a peace church, the rest of "Christian" orthodoxy is not).

[Josh]

Doesn't matter that much what others label. What matters is what God says in His Word. That matters eternally.

And you can be wrong on some doctrines--which will have consequences--but with some truths you cannot be wrong and still be on your way to Heaven.

For instance, Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. John 8:24

God's word also says not to kill people, but a lot of Christians seem to feel fully justified in finding excuses to disobey this clear teaching.