I've enjoyed reading your posts as well as Jon Busch's. I'm glad you are writing and sharing your ideas in a productive way.
I'm ashamed to say that I was one of those who challenged your pacifism position in college--probably not very thoughtfully. My worldview has changed drastically since then. For one, I realized sometime in my mid 20's (far too late) that I don't actually agree with nearly everything Conservative Republican Christians (most Evangelicals) value. Following that, I started a long earnest look at my other deeply held beliefs: Does God Exist? Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God? What do We Know of Jesus' historically and biblically? What is the nature of Heaven and Hell according to scripture? -- too much to tackle in a comment post, I know.
I will push back on your argument in two areas, and I am genuinely curious to hear your position given the conversations you've had with seminarians and theologians. You do admit that you cannot make the text (scriptures) say what they don't in order to conform to your belief system.
First, I cannot agree that Jesus advocated a doctrine of non-violence -- not because I don't believe that it is morally superior to practice non-violence. It is. A religion that preaches "In all your actions seek to do the least harm possible" would be a morally justified religion. I just don't think that is the message of the Bible--the whole Bible. The message of the Bible is "in all your ways follow the commandments of God, your Master, who knows better than you do." Many of those commandments involve committing violence. The very idea of crucifixion being necessary to satisfy the wrath of God speaks to the violence pervasive in Christianity.
The second point is that while many of Jesus's teachings (according to what we have attributed to him in scriptures) were radical (unpopular, unconventional), they were not unique or even original, and they were certainly not the timeless wisdom one would expect from God in the flesh. Many of them have not aged well.
So, I'm happy to say that I agree that non-violence and minimizing harm is the best paradigm for moral living. However, I had to step outside Christianity in order to come to that conclusion.
I recently started reading Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. He says that infidelity does not consist of believing or disbelieving. Rather, it is professing to believe something that one doesn't actual believe.
Good luck with grading and your courses!
Hope you and your family are well!
I have a wife and little 9mo old girl myself and have been living in Gloucester for just over a Pandemic year.
Hello, John,
I've enjoyed reading your posts as well as Jon Busch's. I'm glad you are writing and sharing your ideas in a productive way.
I'm ashamed to say that I was one of those who challenged your pacifism position in college--probably not very thoughtfully. My worldview has changed drastically since then. For one, I realized sometime in my mid 20's (far too late) that I don't actually agree with nearly everything Conservative Republican Christians (most Evangelicals) value. Following that, I started a long earnest look at my other deeply held beliefs: Does God Exist? Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God? What do We Know of Jesus' historically and biblically? What is the nature of Heaven and Hell according to scripture? -- too much to tackle in a comment post, I know.
I will push back on your argument in two areas, and I am genuinely curious to hear your position given the conversations you've had with seminarians and theologians. You do admit that you cannot make the text (scriptures) say what they don't in order to conform to your belief system.
First, I cannot agree that Jesus advocated a doctrine of non-violence -- not because I don't believe that it is morally superior to practice non-violence. It is. A religion that preaches "In all your actions seek to do the least harm possible" would be a morally justified religion. I just don't think that is the message of the Bible--the whole Bible. The message of the Bible is "in all your ways follow the commandments of God, your Master, who knows better than you do." Many of those commandments involve committing violence. The very idea of crucifixion being necessary to satisfy the wrath of God speaks to the violence pervasive in Christianity.
The second point is that while many of Jesus's teachings (according to what we have attributed to him in scriptures) were radical (unpopular, unconventional), they were not unique or even original, and they were certainly not the timeless wisdom one would expect from God in the flesh. Many of them have not aged well.
So, I'm happy to say that I agree that non-violence and minimizing harm is the best paradigm for moral living. However, I had to step outside Christianity in order to come to that conclusion.
I recently started reading Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. He says that infidelity does not consist of believing or disbelieving. Rather, it is professing to believe something that one doesn't actual believe.
Good luck with grading and your courses!
Hope you and your family are well!
I have a wife and little 9mo old girl myself and have been living in Gloucester for just over a Pandemic year.
Best,
Paul Howard