POLL RESULTS: LOVE YOUR ENEMY
These are the final results of the latest poll on SHLOG.COM. SHLOG readers were asked what Jesus meant when he said we should love our enemies. The poll shows the split among modern Christians in America over what His admonition means for us today. Many (25%) apparently believe individuals and governments, armies etc should love their enemies by not harming them physically. These respondents, it might be fair to say, are pacifists or, the term I prefer, non-violent resistors in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. and most early Christians of the first three centuries perhaps.
The largest group of poll participants in the SHLOG.COM poll, however, interprets Jesus' words on loving enemies as meaning something other than a refusal to physically harm those we despise or those who despise and/or harm us (39%). The poll did not give this largest number of respondents an opportunity to explain what Jesus meant then by "Love your enemy." So, if you believe Jesus' call to love those who hate us has nothing to do with how we treat them physically, here's your chance to explain your view of Christ's teachings on enemies to the world...or at least to shloggers around the world. We're reading. Write on.
And check out the new poll about denominational attitudes. You can choose more than one answer this time.
Post a comment here below or discuss at the message-board.
posted by Shaun Groves @ 7/25/2005
6 comments
6 Comments:
"So, if you believe Jesus' call to love those who hate us has nothing to do with how we treat them physically..."
This is kind of a surprising way to put things, given the centuries of intellectual heft behind just war theory.
Unfair, even. And I'm not a big Iraq war-supporter.
But in positing that there are, in fact, causes which justly call for the use of force, we need not make the argument that Jesus' teaching has nothing to do with how we treat our enemies physically.
I'm also a bit confused about the beliefs of the early church, as you allude, and MLK, for that matter (they believed there were no legitimate uses of force by a sovereign government...?)
There is a longstanding, well-developed system of belief in the church that it is LOVE than can actually compel us to forceful action, in the interest of the innocent.
There have been brilliant and reflective believers on both sides of this for centuries, of course. Humililty dictates we know the arguments can't be dismissed easily.
Put too simply, this may be one of those "Yes, but..." things: Yes, God cares about the well-being of those who want to kill the innocent. But He also, obviously, cares about the pain and suffering of those who suffer at their hands. One thing this ain't is so simple.
So for my house: Thank you, police officer, thank you, soldier, when you use force in the interest of advancing justice and rescuing the vulnerable.
We'll have no need of your work in heaven, but there won't be people trying to kill, say, shopping moms, and their kids in strollers there, either.
Here, love must often be heavy-hearted.
Gracias for the time and space...
Brant
"non-violent resistors in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. and most early Christians of the first three centuries perhaps" or pacifists,"
as far as the early church fathers go there were many who supported a just war. In fact, the "pros" clearly have it over the "cons." Clement of Alexandria, (2nd century) Origen (185-254 A.D., who was unique in limiting Christian support to prayer for the troops to succeed), Eusebius, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine all admit to the goodness and usefulness of just wars. Only Tertullian can be listed on the pacifist side. The great early Reformers, such as Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin, were all proponents of the just war. Only the radical reformers rejected the notion of a just war.
C.S. Lewis has the greatest arguements against n.v.r.i.t.t.o.M.L.K.a.m.e.c.o.t.f.t.r.c.p.-ism
"Reason is clearly against the pacifist on all fronts, except, perhaps, one: the teaching of Jesus that one should "turn the other cheek" (Matt. 5:39). Lewis readily admits that it is hard to deal with people who base their entire theology on a few verses—this in itself seems to go against reason—but he does have a response. "If we are going to take all of Jesus’ commands at face value, then pacifists should also sell all their goods and give them to the poor. They should also quit burying their loved ones ("leave the dead to bury the dead," Matt. 8:22).
Fortunately, we have the Apostle Paul to help us here. When Jesus tells us to turn our cheeks when struck, he means that we should not retaliate out of vengeance. We leave vengeance to God, who works his vengeance on the evildoer through the State’s use of the sword. Christians are called upon to support the State, which has been ordained by God just for the purpose of using the sword to establish and maintain justice (Rom. 12–13). This better accords with the rest of the New Testament—not to mention the Old Testament, where God commands killing on quite a number of occasions! Pacifist logic leads us to say that Paul, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews (who, in the eleventh chapter, commends to Christians as people worthy of imitation those Old Testament warriors who waged war for justice) all misunderstood the teachings of Jesus.
I don't think Jesus ever taught us what a proper "government structure should look like. Obviously one can apply Jesus's principles both for individuals and "the church proper" to the functioning of a secular government. But then I don't recall Jesus ever telling "non-Christians" how to act. By my definition a non-Christian is someone who does not follow Christ; therefore anyone in this category cannot be expected to live by Christ's example or teachings anyway. I don't believe our government (to the dimay of church-goers across the USA) exists to follow the leadership of Christ. Therefore, I suppose expecting the application of Christian principles to a secular institution is kind of like expecting Kid Rock to sing Blessed Assurance.
When Jesus said these words to his audience, did he expect governmental change? Did Jesus ever try to influence the structure, policies, or any other aspect of the government? Did Christ live as an example for other individuals to follow and join together in His kingdom (and for now "the church proper") within the existing constructs of government? Maybe someone smarter than me can answer these questions.
Sloppy posting on my part guys. Sorry about that. Thanks for calling me on what I seemed to be saying but I honestly wasn't trying to imply that ALL early Christians were against ALL forms of war or violence. Nor do I believe that those who did not vote for loving enemies having something to do with not harming enemies thought loving enemies had NOTHING to do with physical harm. I was just lazy, didn't want to post that day and was in a hurry so should have chosen my words more carefully and aimed for more clarity.
Sorry about that.
But it is good to read your thoughts. Great thoughts. Made me think and I even learned something.
I mostly wanted to give those frustrated by the limited voting options a chance to explain their view on the passage in question. I supposed, maybe wrongly, that those who voted in the majority might have the most to say in explanation of their votes so I wanted to provoke them to share with the rest of the class. Thanks for sharing.
Sorry again for the unclear poll and resulting post of the results. I'll try harder to think before typing in the future.
Peace out,
SG
Perhaps this has more to do with trusting God in all things, rather than advancing human ideas of justice into the world?
God says quite clearly that to gain our life we must be willing to give it up. Jesus encouraged us to leave anything behind that would cause us to sin (Mothers, Fathers, children, spouse, etc.) Killing another human being is clearly sin.
So if I walk in on a man killing my family what should I do? Obviously I am going to use violence to stop the situation (if necessary), but should I kill?
It has seemed to many Christian thinkers that the correct answer is to pray, not to fight. To forgive, not to seek revenge or vengeance. To love instead of lashing out in anger (the basis of any killing).
These folks might be wrong, but their philosophy seems more like the Jesus I know than the rational justifications used to defend Christian violence.
But what would the world look like if we allowed Evil to reign while we simply prayed, hoped, and died?
It would look insane. The same way Jesus must have looked on that Cross when he prayed, hoped, and died.
Wow, "Anonymous" sure is a common name out here in cyberspace. Especially on threads about hot topics.
SG
Post a Comment
<< Home