but wait there's more

Morning. I checked your site yesterday and got worried you wouldn’t be posting. Thanks for writing, opening up your heart and mind. You seem to be a smart guy (you said you are a guy) in search of answers by creating a dialogue. However, you start by broad-brushing Pro-Life Christians as being “enamored with violence”. (By the way, you’ve remarked that English is your second language; I believe the preferred English would be “enamored of violence”. But I digress…). At the risk of taking up the broad brush myself, I believe most Christians (I would hope most Christians) find it nearly impossible to defend the use of any kind of violence when it comes to protecting the unborn. Still, if it’s your view this isn’t the case in this country, I’ll respect your opinion and move on to expressing my own views.

First, as to pacifism. You cannot claim Jesus is a pacifist unless you are ready to ignore more than half the Bible and that Jesus is God and, as such, He is the God of the New as well as the Old Testament. Jesus is Jehovah, the God who commanded the Israelites to go to war. David said, "Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1)." We know that Jesus was not a pacifist (that definition being someone who denounces all forms of violence for any reason) because the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). He did not suddenly change His mind in the New Testament, so that any teachings must be taken in that context. Would God have us resolve differences without spilling blood? I believe, by and large, the answer is a qualified “yes”. (Of course, war is a result of man's fallen nature. The root cause of war is sin. The Bible makes it clear that death is the penalty for our sin. In other words, it is really our fault that the world is the way it is.) However, as it says in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) “To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven...A time of war, And a time of peace.” There are times, I believe, when war is unavoidable (You never got into any fights on the playground? Wouldn’t you’ve loved to have avoided those?) So, here we go: 1.) Just cause: All aggression is condemned in the just war theory. Participation in the war in question must be prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only defensive war is legitimate. 2.) Just intention: The war in question must have a just intention, that is, its intent must be to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. (Would that our own country [I know you said you came from Florida and seem to deem that as another “universe” but I am assuming you’re an American] could’ve freed the slaves without the horrendous Civil War…). Revenge, conquest, economic gain, and ideological supremacy are not legitimate motives for going to war. There must be a belief that ultimately greater good than harm will result from the war. 3.) Last resort: The war in question must be engaged in only as a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been exhausted. 4.) Formal declaration: The war in question must be initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities. Only governments can declare war, not individuals, terrorist organizations, mercenaries, or militias. 5.) Limited objectives: The war in question must be characterized by limited objectives. This means that securing peace is the goal and purpose of going to war. The war must be waged in such a way that once peace is attained, hostilities cease. Complete destruction of a nation's political institutions or economic institutions is an improper objective. 6.) Proportionate means: Combatant forces of the opposition forces may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace. The types of weapons and amount of force used must be limited to only what is needed to repel the aggression, deter future attacks, and secure a just peace. 7.) Noncombatant immunity: Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them. Since only governments can declare war, only governmental forces or agents are legitimate targets. This means that prisoners of war, civilians, and casualties are immune from intentional attacks. (Gitmo? We may have to wait and see on that one. I tend to agree with you, however, from what limited information I have on the subject. Oh, I don’t understand your spelling. Sorry.) Vis-à-vis the war in Iraq: I am terribly grieved. I believe we went in uninformed and unprepared. But it’s a mess and simply pulling out now could be a huge mistake when it comes to middle east “stability”.

Now, as to PETA people with a pro-choice stance… I believe, for those folks taking such a stance, their issue would be that life starts after birth or with viability. I don’t know. For me, that argument is utterly turned on its head. What’s more, in the interest of full disclosure: I am pro-life. I am also pro-dogs that walk and pro-“dogs” that’re sold in the supermarket. Moving on.

As to what you say re: capital punishment. Obviously, there is much debate. Many Christians feel that the Bible has spoken to the issue (you cite “an eye for an eye”) while others believe the New Testament ethic of love replaces that Old Testament law (a standard we will never live up to – otherwise, the Father sent His son for no reason). I have trouble reconciling those points of view since it would propose the idea that God's dealings with the ancient Israelites took into consideration their "uncivilized" nature. Not only does this ignore the simple fact that the ancients were just as “civilized” as we are today, it forces one to conclude that our Holy God lowers His standards when we can't meet them. Again and to wit: this would negate the need for a Savior. Having said all this, I am torn on this one but, pressed for an answer, do not support capital punishment. Why? – Primarily because I would never want to take away the opportunity for someone to ask Jesus Christ to become their savior. Remember, what Jesus said to the penitent thief on the cross beside him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43

And finally, c’mon, quit harping on the Crusades. That seems to be your crusade and it’s too easy; you have to take into account that, among other mistakes made by those very misguided zealots, the church incorrectly identified itself with the function of the state, and a theocratic one at that. Besides, it’s already been established here in your blog that the worst thing about Christianity can be… the Christians. But that’s our fault. And that’s how God designed it – He leaves it up to us to impart His message (of course, there are other ways God imparts His message: primarily, through His Word, His creation, His Holy Spirit, and on…). More to the point here, as I think you’re trying to stress, God leaves it up to man to live out His message; not just to talk it but to walk it. You’ve cited a number of your favorite quotes so here’s one of mine. It’s attributed to St. Francis, “Preach the Gospel always and, if necessary, use words.” Thanks for listening. I leave you with one last thought: “Oh come, let us worship and bow down; Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice: Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion.” Psalm 95:6-8
 

If you think Jesus is a pacifist, wait until His return -- when the Kinsman Redeemer comes in wrath for his enemies. (Check out Revelation, Daniel, Isaiah...) He loves us all but someday, one day, His patience will run out. He cannot and will not tolerate sin. God is holy and righteous and will have no part of sin. BUT, the good news is the Lord God has provided a way out, for anyone, who will receive His Son, Jesus, as Savior. Now that is what I call peace.