The previous post, a critique of an essay written by Darrell Cole about C. S. Lewis' opposition to pacifism, has attracted some attention. A commenter called jackelliot79 posted several comments. Since we've received very little feedback on this blog thus far, I thought I would capitalize on this new activity with a few more posts in the hopes of generating even greater interest. I've agreed to procure and read Lewis' essay Why I am not a pacifist and critique it directly. But in the meantime, I thought it would be fun to post a link to an excellent essay by a blogger named David W. Congdon entitled "My Conversion to an Evangelical Pacifism" that was originally featured on Halden Doerge's excellent blog Inhabitatio Dei.
Of particular relevance to the previous post, I found, was Congdon's description of Lewis' arguments in Why I am not a pacifist as "criminally weak."
Enjoy!
Friday, January 7, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Critique of an Essay on C. S. Lewis' Just War View
I love C. S. Lewis. In many ways, he has been a mentor to me throughout my Christian life. From the time I first read Mere Christianity to now as I am reading the Chronicles of Narnia series to my children, his teachings have helped to shape my faith. That is why it is particularly troubling to me when I read his thoughts on war and peace. I recently found an essay on Lewis' view of Just War, and opposition to pacifism, on the website of Touchtone Magazine—which is apparently a Christian journal. I'd like to spend a little time and space here dissecting parts of this essay in the hopes of exposing critical errors in its conclusion.
The argument the author makes is amazingly naive. For example, he writes, "Human beings cannot be expected to survive in a political system meant for angels, nor is there any biblical warrant for them to attempt such a system." By this he is referring to pacifism, but it is entirely unclear where he is pulling the idea that peace is an angelic ideal, not a human one.
At one point he examines what he calls the "failure of pacifism" from several points of view: facts, intuition, reasoning, and authority. Take a look at some of his points.
First, the author is supposed to be demonstrating the failure of pacifism under the criterion of "intuition." How does he do so? He states upfront that intuition seems to support pacifism. Then, he goes on to abandon intuition altogether and judge intuition's conclusion by reason. How does this demonstrate pacifism's failure using intuition as a criterion? It doesn't. If anything, this demonstrates pacifism victory on the grounds of intuition, and reason's failure to support our intuition. If our reason goes against our intuition, this author directs readers to jettison their intuition entirely. However, it could just as easily be argued that the author's "reason" or "logic" is just as much an "intuition," since the instinct that killing is not love certainly has a "logical" and "reasonable" grounding.
Second, the author scrutinizes pacifism under the criterion of "authority." Of course, what the author means by authority is unclear. Apparently, he appeals to history as authority rather than Scripture. Not a single verse is cited. And even the author's use of Church Fathers is amateurish at best. The fact that he begins his case for the Church's support of war with a statement that starts this support in the "fourth century" and only claims "some" wars are good, does not make a strong case. The obvious questions this statement begs are: What about the preceding centuries, closer to the time of Christ? And, if all wars have not been good, which wars were not good? The author does not answer the second question, and misrepresents the facts to address the first. He claims that there is a lack of evidence in support of Christian nonviolence before the fourth century, and that more early church fathers supported a concept of just war than were opposed. In fact, he counts Origen as a supporter of war because he taught that we should pray for soldiers. However, he erroneously adds that Origen taught we should pray for soldiers' victory in battle. In contrast, Origen argues that if, as Celsus hypothetically pondered, all Romans were Christians, then war would be unnecessary because through prayer God would destroy Rome's enemies.
Furthermore, the author claims that opinions differ on the early church's stance toward war before Constantine. However, the only detractor from the overwhelming consensus is himself. Cadoux writes,
Finally, the authors' implementation of reason as a demonstration of pacifism's failure is perhaps the most disturbing. His reasoning proceeds thusly:
1) Pacifists take Jesus' nonviolence teachings at "face value."
2) This is clearly a mistake because we don't take other teachings of Jesus literally (e.g. selling all our possessions to give to the poor, and not burying family members.)
3) Thankfully, Paul and Peter show us that what Jesus meant was not to exact vengeance.
He writes,
The author's hermeneutics are pathetic. Placing the saying "let the dead bury their own dead" in the same category as "love your enemies" is intellectually dishonest. Jesus clearly mourns the death of Lazerus, to the point of shedding tears for him—knowing full well that he would be raised to life. Furthermore, it is clear from the context that Jesus' hyperbole was meant to emphasize the urgency and unrelenting resolve discipleship and Kingdom citizenship demand. It is comparable to Christ's hyperbolic teaching to cut off offending body parts. Christ's command to love our enemies is not at all hyperbolic. God loves his enemies. Godliness requires that we act in accordance with the divine nature.
It is also important to note that Romans 12 contains stark examples of Paul's full acceptance of Christ's nonviolent ethic. This includes the command to "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" (v.14) as well as "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (v.18) If we are commanded to bless our enemies and live at peace with them as far as it depends on us, then we have no justification for violence. This sets the stage for Paul's comments about living under worldly governments. We must never think that ours is a role in society of exacting judgment. Rather, ours is a role of peace, reflecting the Kingdom of God where swords will be beaten into plows.
The argument the author makes is amazingly naive. For example, he writes, "Human beings cannot be expected to survive in a political system meant for angels, nor is there any biblical warrant for them to attempt such a system." By this he is referring to pacifism, but it is entirely unclear where he is pulling the idea that peace is an angelic ideal, not a human one.
At one point he examines what he calls the "failure of pacifism" from several points of view: facts, intuition, reasoning, and authority. Take a look at some of his points.
"Intuition provides a stronger case for pacifism. We seem to feel very strongly that love and helping are good, while hate and harming are bad. What this intuition fails to tell us, however, is how we are to love and help the innocent who are being treated unjustly by the wicked without using force on the wicked. So intuition in this case leads us astray because it does not see (not immediately at least) what reason sees: that you can love and use force at the same time."
First, the author is supposed to be demonstrating the failure of pacifism under the criterion of "intuition." How does he do so? He states upfront that intuition seems to support pacifism. Then, he goes on to abandon intuition altogether and judge intuition's conclusion by reason. How does this demonstrate pacifism's failure using intuition as a criterion? It doesn't. If anything, this demonstrates pacifism victory on the grounds of intuition, and reason's failure to support our intuition. If our reason goes against our intuition, this author directs readers to jettison their intuition entirely. However, it could just as easily be argued that the author's "reason" or "logic" is just as much an "intuition," since the instinct that killing is not love certainly has a "logical" and "reasonable" grounding.
"Authority, too, is against the pacifist. Every human society has said that some wars are good and that every citizen benefits from some wars (most obviously, wars of self-defense). The Christian tradition since the fourth century has declared that some wars are good.
Yes, opinion was divided in the first two centuries, but not nearly as much as popular opinion would have us believe. The first Christians were held in suspicion by the Roman authorities, and, to make matters worse, participation in the Roman army meant engaging in pagan rites such as emperor-worship. But we find little evidence of the earliest Christians rejecting military service on account of a moral aversion to bloodshed. Most of the early church fathers who speak on the subject of just war speak with approval.
In fact, the 'pros' clearly have it over the 'cons.' Clement of Alexandria, Origen (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."
Second, the author scrutinizes pacifism under the criterion of "authority." Of course, what the author means by authority is unclear. Apparently, he appeals to history as authority rather than Scripture. Not a single verse is cited. And even the author's use of Church Fathers is amateurish at best. The fact that he begins his case for the Church's support of war with a statement that starts this support in the "fourth century" and only claims "some" wars are good, does not make a strong case. The obvious questions this statement begs are: What about the preceding centuries, closer to the time of Christ? And, if all wars have not been good, which wars were not good? The author does not answer the second question, and misrepresents the facts to address the first. He claims that there is a lack of evidence in support of Christian nonviolence before the fourth century, and that more early church fathers supported a concept of just war than were opposed. In fact, he counts Origen as a supporter of war because he taught that we should pray for soldiers. However, he erroneously adds that Origen taught we should pray for soldiers' victory in battle. In contrast, Origen argues that if, as Celsus hypothetically pondered, all Romans were Christians, then war would be unnecessary because through prayer God would destroy Rome's enemies.
"We say that if two of us agree upon earth concerning anything that they shall ask, they shall receive it from the heavenly Father of the righteous... For they will pray to the Word, who said of old to the Hebrews when they were pursued by the Egyptians: ‘The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall be silent’; and, praying with all concord, they will be able to overthrow far more enemies who pursue them than those whom the prayers of Moses—when he cried to God—and of those with him overthrew...But if, according to Celsus’ supposition, all the Romans were to be persuaded, they will by praying overcome their enemies; or (rather) they will not make war at all, being guarded by the Divine Power, which promised to save five whole cities for the sake of fifty righteous. For the men of God are the salt that preserves the early order of the world; the earthly things hold together (only) as long as the salt is not corrupted."
- Against Celsus, 8.70
Furthermore, the author claims that opinions differ on the early church's stance toward war before Constantine. However, the only detractor from the overwhelming consensus is himself. Cadoux writes,
"The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistence in their literal sense. The closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophesy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good."
- John C. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics, 245.
Finally, the authors' implementation of reason as a demonstration of pacifism's failure is perhaps the most disturbing. His reasoning proceeds thusly:
1) Pacifists take Jesus' nonviolence teachings at "face value."
2) This is clearly a mistake because we don't take other teachings of Jesus literally (e.g. selling all our possessions to give to the poor, and not burying family members.)
3) Thankfully, Paul and Peter show us that what Jesus meant was not to exact vengeance.
He writes,
"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."
The author's hermeneutics are pathetic. Placing the saying "let the dead bury their own dead" in the same category as "love your enemies" is intellectually dishonest. Jesus clearly mourns the death of Lazerus, to the point of shedding tears for him—knowing full well that he would be raised to life. Furthermore, it is clear from the context that Jesus' hyperbole was meant to emphasize the urgency and unrelenting resolve discipleship and Kingdom citizenship demand. It is comparable to Christ's hyperbolic teaching to cut off offending body parts. Christ's command to love our enemies is not at all hyperbolic. God loves his enemies. Godliness requires that we act in accordance with the divine nature.
It is also important to note that Romans 12 contains stark examples of Paul's full acceptance of Christ's nonviolent ethic. This includes the command to "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" (v.14) as well as "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (v.18) If we are commanded to bless our enemies and live at peace with them as far as it depends on us, then we have no justification for violence. This sets the stage for Paul's comments about living under worldly governments. We must never think that ours is a role in society of exacting judgment. Rather, ours is a role of peace, reflecting the Kingdom of God where swords will be beaten into plows.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
A Hard Lesson from the Abolitionist Movement
I just finished reading Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau several days ago and the following quote struck me:
"I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already."
As I have found myself more and more involved with the Christian peace movement I have found that when I read stuff like this I find myself inserting the word "peacemaker" where the author identifies himself. In this passage I found myself reading it like this: "those who call themselves Peacemakers should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts". It sounded inspiring, it sounded radical, initially it sounded right.
Later, as I read more about the Abolitionist movement here in my own home state of Massachusetts (which included several Christian ministers), I realized something upsetting. Check out the following excerpt from The Liberator, a Boston publication authored by William Lloyd Garrison, a minister and outspoken abolitionist who was also a pacifist:
"At the tenth anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, in New York City, May 7th, “it was decided by a vote of nearly three to one of members present….that the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and political duty, that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impractical for tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together for the preservations of human rights, or the promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of Justice and Humanity…..”
"No Union With Slaveholders": This was the position that the Abolitionist movement had taken in regards to their opponents and it was at this point that many men in the movement gradually began to shift towards the use of violence. Their anger at the perceived enemy had grown and grown until finally they could only see their opponent as a monster, a "tyrant", an "evildoer" that "good men" had to separate and distinguish themselves from in order to defeat. Finally, when they could no longer recognize the humanity of their enemy and could no longer see the image of God in him, the abolitionists were won over to the cause of the War. Of course, at that point they had little option since they had no relational ground with their enemy by which to cause change, end slavery, and bring about peace.
Right away I questioned my earlier insertion of "peacemakers" into Thoreau's work. This idea of having no relationship with the enemy suddenly seemed totally contrary to Christ's example and did much greater damage in its divisiveness than it did good. What does "No Union" infer? Is this idea of "No Union With Slaveholders" christlike? Is the voice in my head that wants to separate itself from those who espouse just war theory coming from a good place?
The more I thought about it the more I recognized, as we look back through history, that this kind of self-righteous refusal to associate with sinners was just what Jesus condemned about the pharisees. Jesus spent much of his time with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners: those who the Law had condemned. How do I apply this to my peace witness? What can I infer from Jesus example?
Clearly we are to call out evil where we see it and we should continue to speak out against evils like slavery, nuclear weapons, war, and collateral damage; But if we refuse the enemy the same grace God gives us and we close the door between us and them and say "No Union", we make it impossible for the "enemy" to join us in our cause and we act without humility. It is more important than anything that, as this peace movement moves forward, we do not fear relationships with those who oppose us. They are, I feel, key to the success of bringing about an end to war.
BTW: Check out these three sites. Lots of great material here:
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience
The Liberator: A collection of excerpts from the Abolitionist publication.
A Pacifist Response to Military Chaplain's Day
"I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already."
As I have found myself more and more involved with the Christian peace movement I have found that when I read stuff like this I find myself inserting the word "peacemaker" where the author identifies himself. In this passage I found myself reading it like this: "those who call themselves Peacemakers should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts". It sounded inspiring, it sounded radical, initially it sounded right.
Later, as I read more about the Abolitionist movement here in my own home state of Massachusetts (which included several Christian ministers), I realized something upsetting. Check out the following excerpt from The Liberator, a Boston publication authored by William Lloyd Garrison, a minister and outspoken abolitionist who was also a pacifist:
"At the tenth anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, in New York City, May 7th, “it was decided by a vote of nearly three to one of members present….that the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and political duty, that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impractical for tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together for the preservations of human rights, or the promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of Justice and Humanity…..”
"No Union With Slaveholders": This was the position that the Abolitionist movement had taken in regards to their opponents and it was at this point that many men in the movement gradually began to shift towards the use of violence. Their anger at the perceived enemy had grown and grown until finally they could only see their opponent as a monster, a "tyrant", an "evildoer" that "good men" had to separate and distinguish themselves from in order to defeat. Finally, when they could no longer recognize the humanity of their enemy and could no longer see the image of God in him, the abolitionists were won over to the cause of the War. Of course, at that point they had little option since they had no relational ground with their enemy by which to cause change, end slavery, and bring about peace.
Right away I questioned my earlier insertion of "peacemakers" into Thoreau's work. This idea of having no relationship with the enemy suddenly seemed totally contrary to Christ's example and did much greater damage in its divisiveness than it did good. What does "No Union" infer? Is this idea of "No Union With Slaveholders" christlike? Is the voice in my head that wants to separate itself from those who espouse just war theory coming from a good place?
The more I thought about it the more I recognized, as we look back through history, that this kind of self-righteous refusal to associate with sinners was just what Jesus condemned about the pharisees. Jesus spent much of his time with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners: those who the Law had condemned. How do I apply this to my peace witness? What can I infer from Jesus example?
Clearly we are to call out evil where we see it and we should continue to speak out against evils like slavery, nuclear weapons, war, and collateral damage; But if we refuse the enemy the same grace God gives us and we close the door between us and them and say "No Union", we make it impossible for the "enemy" to join us in our cause and we act without humility. It is more important than anything that, as this peace movement moves forward, we do not fear relationships with those who oppose us. They are, I feel, key to the success of bringing about an end to war.
BTW: Check out these three sites. Lots of great material here:
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience
The Liberator: A collection of excerpts from the Abolitionist publication.
A Pacifist Response to Military Chaplain's Day
Monday, December 27, 2010
Recreating Christ in the Image of Caesar, Part II
In the documentary Hanged on a Twisted Cross: The Life, Convictions and Martyrdom of Dietrich Bonhoeffer the young theologian's relationship to Nazism and the subsequent Nazification of the German Church is chronicled. This portion of the film was particularly striking:
In September of 1933, in church elections, Hitler's nominee, Ludwig Müller was elected to lead the German Christian Church. As the Reichbishop of the Reich Church, Müller desired to accelerate the Nazification of the German church.
Müller nationalized the Sermon on the Mount, rewriting the Beatitudes. The beatitude of the meek became "Blessed is the one who is a good comrade at all times, he will get on well in the world."
"Wanting to serve both Caesar and Christ, the Reich church finally shaped its Christ in the image of the Caesar."
Recreating Christ in the Image of Caesar, Part I
According to various church traditions, Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus (aka Constantine "the Great" or even "Saint Constantine"), accepted Christianity as his religion after gaining victory over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge—where the would-be emperor allegedly had a vision of the Chi (X) Rho (P), the first two letters in the Greek word christos, meaning Christ. Eusebius, an early church historian, wrote one of the only description of this story. In his account, Constantine saw a vision in the heavens of the cross along with the words In Hoc Signo Vinces meaning "In this sign, you will conquer."
Constantine is claimed to be the first "Christian Emperor" due to his issuance of the Edict of Milan in 313—mandating religious tolerance—and effectively "legalizing" Christianity (along with all other religions). However, much of the evidence that Constantine was "Christian" is highly suspect, if not plainly inconclusive. For example, the closest historic link we have to Constantine, his triumphal arch in Rome, erected to commemorate his victory over Maxentius—the one he supposedly attributed to Christ's power—contains not one, single Christian symbol. Instead, the arch is adorned by several reliefs with depictions of Apollo, Hercules, Diana, Silvanus. In fact, the shields and standards of Constantine's soldiers do not even display the Chi (X) that Eusebius tells was commanded in a dream the night before. Constantine even continued to accept the title of Potifex Maximus, head of the Roman pagan priesthood, after his alleged conversion.
Prior to Constantine, from the time of Christ to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (160-181AD), there is no historical account of Christians serving in the Roman military. In contrast, the early church theologian Origen (185-251AD), in his six-part treatise Against Celsus, conceded the charge of Celsus, a pagan philosopher, that Christians do not "hold public office, fight in the army, or swear the oaths of allegiance to the state."
Nevertheless, by the fourth century, the Constantinian Shift was complete. The Constantinian Shift is the historical-theological transition from the nonviolent, Kingdom ethic of Jesus and his early followers to the violent, triumphalist ethic of "Christendom." This term was coined by renowned Anabaptist theologian John Howard Yoder.
The mosaic pictured above is one of the more blatant examples of this shift. Its is from the Byzantine period, and is featured in the Archepiscopal Palace in Ravenna—the then capital of Roman Empire. It was commissioned by Bishop Pietro II in 494-495. The mosaic depicts Christ as a Roman Legionary and wearing a purple tunic, the symbol of royalty. Unlike a Jewish Rabbi, Christ is pictured beardless like a Roman emperor. Far from the Hebrew peasant born under Roman occupation and crucified on a Roman cross, Christ is here recreated in the image of the emperor.
In part 2 of this post, I will show how the Reich Church of Nazi Germany recreated Christ in the image of the "Fuhrer."
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Living Out the Sermon on the Mount
Jesus taught his disciples saying,
Julio Diaz loves his mugger and wins him over with the power of love.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89164759
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Mt. 5.38-42)
Julio Diaz loves his mugger and wins him over with the power of love.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89164759
Thursday, September 2, 2010
yoder quotes
one of the books i read during my 40 day media fast was the original revolution by john howard yoder, a collection of essays discussing the topic of christian pacifism. **everyone must read this book**
i wrote down some of my favorite quotes and thought i'd share them with the blogosphere. enjoy...
"jesus will therefore be describing a morality of repentance or of conversion; not a prescription of what Every Man can and should do to be happy; not a meditation on how best to guide society, but a description of how a person behaves whose life has been transformed by meeting jesus."
"this (christian pacifism) is not a set of moral standards to be posed on everyone or on the unconvinced."
"the ethics of discipleship is not guided by the goals it seeks to reach, but by the Lord it seeks to reflect."
"what jesus meant by fulfillment was thus a quite literal filling full, a carrying on to full accomplishment of the intent of the earlier moral guides."
"nonresistance is right, in the deepest sense, not because it works, but because it anticipates the triumph of the lamb that was slain."
"here we must point out that this attitude, leaving evil free to be evil, leaving the sinner free to separate himself from God and sin against man, is a part of the nature of agape itself, as revealed already in creation."
"God's love begins right at the point where he permits sin against himself and against man, without crushing the rebel under his own rebellion."
regarding the new covenant..."once all men are seen as potential partakers of the covenant, then the outside can no longer be perceived as less than human or as an object for sacrificing."
read the book for yourself. it's brilliant.
-dave-
i wrote down some of my favorite quotes and thought i'd share them with the blogosphere. enjoy...
"jesus will therefore be describing a morality of repentance or of conversion; not a prescription of what Every Man can and should do to be happy; not a meditation on how best to guide society, but a description of how a person behaves whose life has been transformed by meeting jesus."
"this (christian pacifism) is not a set of moral standards to be posed on everyone or on the unconvinced."
"the ethics of discipleship is not guided by the goals it seeks to reach, but by the Lord it seeks to reflect."
"what jesus meant by fulfillment was thus a quite literal filling full, a carrying on to full accomplishment of the intent of the earlier moral guides."
"nonresistance is right, in the deepest sense, not because it works, but because it anticipates the triumph of the lamb that was slain."
"here we must point out that this attitude, leaving evil free to be evil, leaving the sinner free to separate himself from God and sin against man, is a part of the nature of agape itself, as revealed already in creation."
"God's love begins right at the point where he permits sin against himself and against man, without crushing the rebel under his own rebellion."
regarding the new covenant..."once all men are seen as potential partakers of the covenant, then the outside can no longer be perceived as less than human or as an object for sacrificing."
read the book for yourself. it's brilliant.
-dave-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)