Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Greg Boyd Weighs in on Denver

I think Greg Boyd nails exactly how I feel about the topic.

13 Comments:

At 1:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh no...I hope that we don't have to get in a discussion now on open theism.... Of course, since God can change his mind, and God does not know what the future is, then we better arm ourselves because a gunman could sneak in without God being aware.....

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Julie said...

Let me get this straight: Kingdom people (i.e., Christians) are prohibited from ever using force to defend themselves, their families, and other innocent people from aggression, yet it’s okay for us to delegate this task to non-Kingdom people. What Boyd is saying here is that no believer may ever hold an office or occupation that requires the use of force to protect innocent people from violent criminals or foreign aggressors. What it means is that the God who authored civil governments for the defense of the righteous would not allow the righteous to serve in any capacity that would enable them to protect the righteous. It is saying that only the unrighteous may serve as magistrates, for it is they who bear the sword for the punishment of the wicked. Basically, Boyd is saying that no believer may ever serve in public office, since there is always the possibility that a public servant may have to put a criminal to death, either via the death penalty or through some kind of police action.

This is hogwash. It completely nullifies every Old Testament command that requires the protection and defense of human life, which Jesus never overturned. It also flies in the face of Christ's command to love our neighbors. How can we love our neighbors if we are not willing to protect them from people intent on doing them harm? Boyd’s thinking would have prevented believers serving during WWII from liberating the Jews from Nazi death camps and would allow our communities, cities, and countries to be overrun by violent criminals. Also, if only the unrighteous may serve in the military and police forces, then these agencies would be infested with evil and corruption.

Laying down one's life for the cause of Christ is not the same thing as looking the other way when a gunman kills innocent people. Loving our enemies does not mean we have the right to allow our neighbors and loved ones to be slaughtered when it is in our power to save them. Seeking personal vengeance is completely different from stopping armed criminals from destroying innocent human life. The Bible commands us to choose life, not death.

Finally, nowhere did Jesus or any New Testament writer tell soldiers to leave their professions once they converted to Christianity. When John the Baptist baptized soldiers, he didn't tell them they could no longer serve in the army. When some soldiers asked him, "What should we do?" he replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay" (Luke 3:14). If Kingdom people are prohibited from serving as soldiers, surely John the Baptist would have said so when these soldiers asked him what they should do.

I think Greg Boyd needs to think this one through a little more.

 
At 2:04 PM, Blogger Corey said...

See pastorboy, that's exactly what I've talked with you about. Just because someone holds some teachings which are controversial or incorrect, it doesn't nullify the fact that they may have something good to say about other issues. There is nothing related to open theism in his pacifist position, and yet you can't speak to his position, you have to slander him, mock him, and ridicule him based on his other theological. What is your deal??

julie, I'll respond when I have a little more time...I've got a 5 year old and 2 year old about to jump on me! Thanks for interacting!

 
At 8:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Corey,

I never slandered him. I simply stated that if God does not know the future, should we not prepare for it.

Julie,

EXCELLENT statement. I myself would not have a gun in the pulpit of an armed security guard, but not because it is wrong, it is more because I am ready to go home to heaven right now, and I prepare my little flock for that reality weekly. God has absolutely (Romans 13) made a place for civil authority, and also has diferentiated murder from being submissive to the government in times of war as well as giving civil authorities the 'sword' so to speak to enforce the law. I do not agree with Greg Boyd's open theism OR his stance on pacifism. I thank God, however, that over 3500 soldiers have bled and died in Iraq to defend his right to hold that stance.

 
At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.
Wow.
Corey: I should read your blog more frequently. What fireworks!
Pastorboy: I'm glad you have everything figured out completely about God's sovereignty to the point where you can mock someone else's views. Did God know before you commented that you were going to make a disparaging remark towards a fellow Christian? I guess so.

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Corey said...

Julie, thanks again for your comments. I always appreciate your insight. Also, given your Colorado Springs locale, this is obviously a pretty touchy subject. So I want to emphasize that I don't think that the security guard in question did anything wrong. And like Boyd, I would call her a hero for her role in saving the lives of countless other innocent victims. Also, by the way, my wife agrees with your statement completely, which I guess means that she has free reign to violently abuse me while I just stand there and take it!!!

Let me interact with your statements a bit. Historically, anabaptists (whom Greg Boyd fully identifies) would agree with the logical results of that perspective. Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, etc. today and throughout the last 400 years refused to participate in the military, police, or civil government because of the inherent conflict between Jesus' teachings and the expectations that come with those positions.

From my perspective, I've been preaching through the Sermon on the Mount for the last year and a half. I have a very hard time getting past the difficult statements that Jesus makes as he radically reinterprets holiness, holy living, and the moral expectations of the people of God. Boyd quoted a bunch of passages, but I want to just mention a couple (sorry, long quotation - I don't normally like to quote scripture at people, but I need a context here...)

Matt. 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matt. 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The key part for me is, what does Jesus mean when he says "do not resist an evil person." In the research that I've done for this sermon series, that phrase is probably better rendered, "do not resist by evil means", because Jesus himself certainly resisted evil. But what does it mean to resist appropriately? Throughout the past few centuries, people in the anabaptist tradition as well as people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi have said that violence is necessarily an "evil means" of responding to violence, injustice, and abuse. It is responding "evil for evil", instead of reacting to evil with good.

This is Jesus' perspective. The practical examples that he uses are particularly difficult to explain away. What does it mean to turn the other cheek? It means to willingly subject yourself to more abuse from the abuser in the hopes that the abuser will be shamed because of his evil and relent from his abuse. The same is true for the "walk a second mile" section. Roman soldiers were permitted to force their subjects to carry their pack for one mile. For a follower of Jesus to voluntarily carry it a second mile means that the soldier would be confronted with their own abuse of power in such a way that the abused person maintains dignity and does not stoop to the level of the abuser.

I think the Sermon on the Mount is the starting point for creating our personal/ecclesiastical code of ethics. Given that, I don't think that we can explain these passages (and many others like them) away.

One key point that I think needs to be made. You write, "Laying down one's life for the cause of Christ is not the same thing as looking the other way when a gunman kills innocent people." I absolutely agree and I don't think that it is ever appropriate for a follower of Jesus to look the other way when violence and injustice is happening. I would argue, however, that the way in which a kingdom person intervenes is radically different than the way a representative of the state intervenes. Laying aside their own life is always part of the bargain.

To the pragmatic side of things, I don't think that this perspective precludes serving in government/military/police, which means that I am not a full-blown anabaptist. However, I think that this perspective does limit the roles in which a Christian can ethically serve. I would have no problem personally in serving in a non-combatant role in the military. Most police officers never fire their guns over the course of their entire careers, and when they do, they rarely shoot to kill. There are many government roles where there is no decision-making regarding military force. I would also say that I personally have no problem with those who hold a different position from mine. I would encourage people to look closely at the teachings of Jesus and if they can reconcile them to their own practice, then they should feel free to do as they see appropriate.

Finally, I will also admit my own philosophical/theological inconsistencies. For now, at least, if an armed gunman threatened my family, I would most definitely respond with violence if I knew that would keep my family safe. There may come a time when I feel differently, but for now I would have a hard time practically living out the teachings of Jesus in this area.

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Julie said...

Thanks for your comment to my post, pastorboy. I definitely agree about the need to be ready to go home at any time. I also agree that murder is not the same thing as killing for the purpose of defending one's country or to protect the life of another.

To me, what seemed most silly about Boyd's statements is his implication that it's immoral for Christians to serve in an institution that God specifically ordained. If it is God who granted police powers to governments for the defense of the righteous, it makes no biblical sense to conclude that His people may not serve in that capacity.

 
At 12:08 PM, Blogger Julie said...

Corey, thanks so much for your detailed response to my comment. I guess my reply to pastorboy crossed with yours. I will try to reply more thoroughly when I have more time, but I appreciate your comments. For now, I will say that my father's childhood in Nazi Germany has had a big influence on my thinking about these issues (his name, along with that of my grandmother, was on a list of people who would have been sent to a concentration camp if Hitler had not been stopped. They were Catholic but had Jewish ancestry.)

 
At 12:13 PM, Blogger Corey said...

Julie,
I won't pretend that I'm not filled with tension on this one. I love Bonhoeffer's willingness to return to Germany to suffer with his people and to subvert the empire through the underground seminary, but I struggle with his decision to later use violence to do so (grounded in his emphasis on the sermon on the mount!!).
Corey

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger Julie said...

Corey, I find it fascinating that you mentioned Bonhoeffer, because it was his example that most shaped my views (and those of my husband) about this issue. Interestingly, we were struggling with reconciling Romans 13 with our personal conviction that resisting government tyranny is a justifiable use of force, and we sought out our pastor for his perspective. On the way to church, we were discussing whether it would have been appropriate for Christians to attempt to overthrow Hitler (at this time, we were unaware that Bonhoeffer, one of my husband's heroes, had attempted to so).

When we approached our pastor with the question of whether Christians would be justified in using force against a tyrannical government, he answered "yes" without any hestitation. He said that when a government becomes completely contemptuous of human life, it is no longer acting in accordance with God's plan for government and has stepped outside the bounds of lawful authority. He said the bibical basis for this perspective is Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man will his blood be shed" and that this applies to governments as well as to individuals. Then he cited Bonhoeffer as an example of someone who attempted to use justifiable force to oppose government tyranny. This was an amazing confirmation of what we felt the Holy Spirit had already been telling us. We were blown away that a pastor (and one from New York, no less) would feel that way. We also had no idea that Bonhoeffer had been part of the plot to assassinate Hitler. Hearing this from our pastor really cemented our views on this subject. But he did add that Christians should never use force as a first option and should only use force (which I don't believe is the same thing as violence) as an absolute last resort.

 
At 2:20 PM, Blogger Julie said...

A few other quick points I wanted to make: First, Jesus did use force on one occasion, and that was when He drove the money changers out of the temple using a whip he had fashioned from His belt. Second, when we look at Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" after someone has slapped us, we need to consider the cultural context. In the days of Christ, slapping someone on the face was considered a terrible insult, but it was not a life-threatening attack. I don't believe that turning the other cheek in this context would prohibit us from using force to defend ourselves and loved ones from someone intent on killing us.

Finally, it is interesting to note that one of Jesus' last commands to His disciples was to purchase swords. If Jesus was completely against the use of force in any and all circumstances, why would he tell his followers to arm themselves? Was it just for decoration, or did He intend for them to use swords for self-defense?

 
At 12:49 AM, Blogger Emergent Eddie said...

Kyle.
I never made a disparaging comment towards another Christian. I made a disparaging comment against open theism.

And yes, God knew I would make that statement.

And He knew you would to.

And God's Omniscience unconstrained by time means we can still operate in the realm of free will.

 
At 6:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever
Have fun making comments about whoever you want on the internet. It really doesn't matter.
I'm out.....

 

Post a Comment

<< Home