Ethics

Just in case you don't have enough to read in blogosphere, I subscribe (pay money) to Carlton Vogt's email newsletter and forum on ethics, primarily business ethics, at http://www.enterprise-ethics.com

He used to have a column in Infoworld, but he and several columnists I enjoyed were dropped from the printed magazine.

The current article is on if a low wage offer could be unethical. We all have intuition as to what is right and wrong, but Carlton clarifies the rational basis where this intuition comes from.

I don't know Carlton personally, but his newletter is well worth the $10-15 per year.

Of course, if there is another ethicist out there that you like, leave a comment about him.

C.S. Lewis knows best

My Great Banquet 4th-day group is discussing The Screwtape Letters. Chapters 14 and 15 really helped me refocus on my relationship with God and where I fit in his creation.

Ch. 14

On grace and temptation:

"No more lavish promises of perpetual virtue, but only a hope for the daily and hourly pittance to meet the daily and hourly temptation."

On the danger of low self-esteem:

"... and, above all, if the self-contempt can be made the starting point for contempt of other selves, and thus for gloom, cynicism, and cruelty."

On Fame/Pride (and seeing through the eyes of a child):

"The Enemy (God) wants him (any Christian), in the end, to be so free from any bias in his own favour that he can rejoice in his own talents as frankly and gratefully as in his neighbors talents - or a sunrise, and elephant, or a waterfall."

The dynamics of repentence:

"Even of his sins the Enemy (God) does not want him to think too much: once they are repented, the sooner the man turns his attention outward, the better the enemy is pleased."

Ch. 15

What we should focus on minute-to-minute:

"He, therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself and to that point of time which they call the present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity."

Sins are future-oriented:

"...fear, avarice, lust, and ambition look ahead. Do not think lust an exception. When the present pleasure arrives, the sin(which alone interests us), is already over."

The idolitry at the root of all sin:

"He does not want men to give the Future their hearts, to place their treasure in it."

I especially like the idea of dwelling in the Present.

Emergent Movement, Churches, Relationships

A post by Justin was very good and has very good comments. Here is my comment, which wanders a bit, and is long, so I did not want to burden his post.

***

I am really following this post and comments closely. This is one of those posts that appears to strike very close to the heart of what is Christian community.

To me, it brings back something an Elder at my church said several years ago, that he wanted our church to go from "the church with the blue doors" to "a friendly, welcoming church".

Yes, he never mentions God, but I took it like he had. My immediate thought was: How could we possibly move this body close to Christ... where the entire congregation feels as if it is a part of a church community, and the wider community of all God's creation?

I don't know how to get there, but it seems that every church that is nearer to this than we are is run by a central group of believers that get things going, a dynamic lay ministry.

The emergent movement seems to say (and I could be wrong) that those in the emergent "church" don't want to deal with those who come to church as hobby, or empty habit, and refuse to change.

(Sorry if the previous paragraph flames anyone).

I agree with doc that it is all about relationships. This is central.

I personally am better on Sunday's and Tuesday's, because on those days I have met regularly with other Christians that I have more than a casual relationship with, who bring me closer to the Creator. Being with them reminds me of who I am supposed to be.

I know of several highly-effective secular volunteer groups that approach this for me. They do not meet as like-minded Christians, but nevertheless, they make time to develop the interpersonal relationships that make the group effective. And there is always one or more gifted, "lay" leaders who are continuously encouraging and reminding the group of the standards and reasons the group exists, why the individuals belong to it.

Can't an established church be a spawning pool for small emergent groups, that meet daily, forming the close community each believer is drawn to, but also tying individuals from different groups together? Can an established church allow these groups as much freedom as possible, much as Jesus dealt with the different sinners in his ministry?

I think this gets back to the leadership in the established church. Can they support emergent groups and the formation of relationships in a useful way.

It is all about building relationships, and lately in my personal path, it is about relationships with people I don't naturally get along with. God is working and I am not tickled by what he appears to have planned for me. Hopefully I am wrong in discerning his call.

I like this post/comments from Justin. A definite reread. I have been disappointed with my church, my men's group and myself. Seeing others struggle with these issues on a church to small group scale encourages me to look for answers (and redouble my efforts to move towards discipleship).

When God says No

I stole this from Helen.

Faith

I have been reading the book "Me and My Big Mouth" by Joyce Meyer. In it she is talking about having faith and believing the Lord for good things in our lives. I am really attracted to this becasue I know how important it is to have faith. However I've realized that I am holding back from God on this. I've been thinking a LOT about this lately and I am beginning to see why I am holding back.

It is fear of disappointment. I can list many examples of times when myself or others have believed God for something, and it didn't happen. Why should I believe when the thing doesn't come to pass?

Then I thought well the word says to endure hardship as discipline, God is treating us as sons and daughters. When God says 'no' that is a hardship to us. A 'no' answer is an opportunity for faith as well. In fact some famous writer said it requires MORE faith when God says 'no.'

So if I want to be a faithful person, living out ALL that God has for me in Christ Jesus, I must come to terms with the fact that God will say 'no' and I need to trust him all the more in these circumstances.

No one LIKES to be disciplined. But that doesn't mean dicsipline is bad. In fact discipline is good and necessary. So I can endure hardship because God is training me for his service, for his glory. Now I can get excited about that! There is a purpose in everything. A great purpose in the 'yeses' and the 'nos.'

Another peice of this is the "need to know why" issue. That drives a wedge and becomes a stumbling block when I "need to know" why God allowed something so awful or painful. Part of faith again is trusting that God is good despite all the evil that may befall me or my loved ones. I stumble over this one at times. Just "needing to know" in order to trust him.

I am now seeing the foolishness of holding myself back from taking all that is mine in Christ Jesus for fear of disappointment. Just because God says 'no' doesn't mean he is not worthy of my complete trust and faith.

"When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?"

Faith is of greater worth than gold. Faith is one of the things that remain, along with Hope and Love. Jesus rebuked those who had little faith, and rewarded those with great faith. Do I want Jesus shaking his head at me and saying "why did you doubt?" No! I want Jesus to say "well done good and FAITHFUL servant!"

Did Jesus teach nonviolence?

I shamelessly copied the following post from Justin because it was so good, and I wanted to reread it and comment more in the future. Maybe there is a better way to do this, but ...

1: Misconceptions about Non-Pacifists

I've been confronted recently with many pleas for pacifism, and I think there is some confusion as to what non-pacifists actually believe.

First, no Christian, pacifist or not, believes in wanton violence for no reason. Perhaps the way we make our arugments makes it sound like non-pacifists are baseball-bat-wielding thugs, waiting for a chance to whack someone who gives them the wrong look. But let's be realistic. The arguments for using violence when necessary fall under categories such as:

• Stopping harm to the defenseless
• Otherwise stopping a tyrant
• Use of the death penalty
• “Peace through strength” - using decisive violence to stop ongoing violence (e.g. Hiroshima & Nagasaki)

Second, non-pacifists do take Jesus' call to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9) seriously; the difference is that violence is seen as a sometimes-necessary (or sometimes the best) path to peace. No one encourages their kids to fight, or wishes there was more conflict in the world.

Third, non-pacifism and warmongering are not the same thing. This article on pacifism assumes that non-pacifists are warmongers (along with some other facile assumptions), but a warmonger is “one who urges or attempts to stir up war.” Those who take violent action to achieve peace (or other human rights goals) are hardly the ones stirring up things. WWII was Hitler's fault, not the Allies'.

Fourth, pacifists tend to assume that non-pacifists jump to war or violence as the first recourse in solving any problem. I don't know about you, but I can't recall anyone ever saying, “Hey, that's too bad. Let's start a war. Why waste time thinking of other solutions?” War is horrible and should be used only as a last resort, but when it's necessary, it's necessary.

Fifth, non-pacifists don't usually advocate violent action that is likely to fail and result in further suffering. Gandhi and MLK were wise to use nonviolent resistance because they would have been slaughtered if they were violent. That doesn't mean nonviolent resistance is the only moral high ground.

Sixth, non-pacifists don't necessarily believe that it is OK to use violence to defend property. Jesus said to let people take your stuff (Matthew 5:38-42), and not to resist an evil person. He didn't, however, say to let them kill your wife and kids.

2: What Pacifists Believe

As far as I can tell, Christian pacifists believe:

• Jesus taught us to be peacemakers, so we should not be violent for any reason
• Jesus did not defend himself against crucifixion with violence, setting the example for us
• Violence begets violence, so using violence to stop violence is counterproductive
• There are no “just wars”
• Since Jesus did not use violence to defend himself, he was a pacifist
• Jesus in fact taught that violence is categorically wrong

I'm sure I have missed some and misstated others, so please correct me in the comments.

3: What Jesus Says about Violence

I was reading Missional Church tonight and came across this:

Virtually every Christian public ethic justifying behavior that runs counter to the example and teaching of Jesus does it on the grounds of responsibility….If being nonviolent is not always responsible, then Christians should defend themselves with violent power or take up arms whenever the government calls, so the argument goes.

Guder is right. If Jesus said to be nonviolent, we'd better not make any excuses about it. So the question is: Did Jesus teach nonviolence?

I read all of the red letters in my bible this evening to see if Jesus indicated any pacifist leanings. Here are the verses I noticed as mentioning war, violence, killing, peace, peacemaking, swords, etc. (This was compiled through actual reading, not a keyword search, and it omits verses that are duplicated in the Synoptics):
Matthew 5:7-9; Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:38-42; Matthew 5:44; Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14; Matthew 7:1; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 10:34; Matthew 10:39; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 11:29; Matthew 12:19; Matthew 18:6-9; Matthew 18:22; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 22:39; Matthew 23:23; Matthew 26:52-54; Mark 3:4; Mark 7:21-22; Mark 10:44; Mark 12:9; Luke 1:79; Luke 6:27; Luke 9:54-55; Luke 10:27; Luke 12:45; Luke 19:27; Luke 19:38; Luke 20:16; Luke 22:36; Luke 24:36; John 2:15-16; John 8:1-11; John 14:27; John 16:33; John 18:36; John 20:19,21,26.

Read them for yourself (or do your own search) and see if you can find Jesus saying anything about pacifism. Note that being a “peacemaker” is not something reserved only for pacifists; Ecclesiastes speaks of a time to kill and a time to heal. Following are a few passages used as the basis for the Christian pacifist position (including seeing Jesus as a pacifist). My contention is that Jesus was not a pacifist, as will become clear.

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

Jesus said this in the Beatitudes, Matthew 5:9. I agree with him. I fully believe in peacemaking, in all areas of life. The phrase that came to mind as I read Jesus' words was radical interpersonal harmony. Jesus wants us to love each other, and to get along.

This takes us back to the misconceptions about non-pacifists. I am a non-pacifist because I believe it is sometimes necessary for people to take violent action to prevent evil people from using their power to harm others. The world would be a better place if Bonhoeffer's attempt to assassinate Hitler had been effective. Rwanda would not have seen the genocide it did if foreign troops had gone in to settle things down soon enough.

The ultimate and immediate goal of just violence must be peace. If it's violence for economic gain, personal or political agenda, hatred, or sport, it's absolutely wrong, and needs to be stopped. 1984's grim, unending wars were fought by the governments of the various superpowers to keep people poor and make sure they weren't too productive. I don't think that's the kind of war any Christians are proposing.

Turn the Other Cheek

Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-42:

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 someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Eye for an eye refers to revenge. Hopefully we all know that revenge is God's job, not ours. Pacifism takes issue not only with revenge, but intervention to prevent further violence.

The reference to someone striking you on the cheek, I have heard over and over, is about a Jewish way of insulting someone, not an actual attack (I don't have a reference, but I expect that this explanation is well known). Whether self-defense is justified is a separate issue, but suffice it to say that this statement of Jesus does not address the ethics of violence in defending someone else.

The main thrust of this passage is about personal rights. Jesus is saying to give up your perceived rights to dignity, sovereign personal property, and revenge. He tells us to overcome the injustice that the wicked would foist on us with unimaginable kindness and undeserved generosity - the “heaping burning coals” idea.

Woman Caught in Adultery

In John 8, the Pharisees bring before Jesus a woman caught in adultery (though not the man). This is a capital offense in Israel. Jesus points out that none of them are perfect, and thus it would be hypocritical of them to stone her. Jesus, as the perfect Son of God, has the right to, but he doesn't.

One way to read this is that Jesus is opposed to capital punishment. But for a crime like this, wouldn't everyone be opposed to the death penalty? The only crimes Western nations execute people for are those that involve enormous and irreparable harm to another party, such as murder, child abuse, and terrorism. This woman certainly sinned, but she didn't hurt anyone but herself and her marriage. She was not a menace to society.

So, this passage may be a hint that Jesus doesn't like the death penalty, but it's not similar enough to modern-day capital punishment to signify a seismic shift from “Stone people for the following…” thinking to “All capital punishment is wrong.” Remember the OT. Stoning was God's command, and while Jesus' decision here is enough to show us that God doesn't operate that way any more, it's not enough to introduce a unilateral anti-execution policy.

Cleansing the Temple

Jesus made a whip. He drove the commercial operations out of the temple. Do you think he hit anyone with that whip? Let's just say a pacifist wouldn't make a whip and use it to forcibly expel people from a building.

The Crucifixion

In the absence of strong textual evidence for Jesus' pacifistic leanings, it is worth asking what we can learn from his example - not what he said, but what he did. The ultimate example from his life is the crucifixion. Jesus died a humble death, using none of his power to resist the Romans or the Jews who had him crucified.

I'm unclear, though, on how this is an argument for pacifism, because Jesus's crucifixion was an essential part of his mission. He planned it, prayed about it, and went for it intentionally. If he had “called 10,000 angels // to destroy the world and set him free,” the whole thing would have failed to achieve what it was intended to achieve.

Jesus himself explains why violence would be counterproductive to his mission: Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36). He does not say “I have taught my followers that violence is wrong, and I'm taking a risk to show them a better way.”

One article I came across said that Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, and that proves his nonviolent ethic. Actually, if you read Luke 22, you'll see that Jesus told them to bring swords (verse 36) - not to defend Jesus, but to defend themselves, presumably. I can't think of why else he would tell them to bring swords. What would the disciples of a pacifist need swords for?

4: Necessary Roughness

The context for the discussion of nonviolence is the ever-present need to defend the defenseless. As I said above, no Christian would support war for war's sake, or violence for its own sake. Violence is necessary, however, when a despot has gained power and is using it to harm others, or when a situation of large-scale unrest threatens the safety of everyone.

As far as I understand it, the pacifist position says that no situation calls for violence. Gandhi and MLK are great examples of nonviolent resistance, and they used noble means to achieve a noble end. Certainly, if Gandhi's people had pursued violent resistance strategies, as they wanted to do, they would have continued to be slaughtered.

There is a difference, though, between futile violence, counterproductive violence, and immoral violence. Immoral violence is that used by tyrants for no good reason - doing evil to achieve evil or selfish ends. Counterproductive violence is the kind Jesus avoided, e.g. stopping the crucifixion with a squadron of angels, because it would interfere with his mission. Futile violence is that exercised by a grossly overpowered people, who will only be slaughtered in the backlash if they are violent.

Remember that thousands of innocent Indians died in Gandhi's nonviolent resistance movement. What if the United States or some other world power had stepped in and stopped the British violence? Is it better for 100 soldiers to shoot 100 other soldiers, or is it better for 100 soldiers to shoot all the peasants they want, including 5,000 in one day?

I am not encouraging violence for any reason other than the defend the helpless, and then only when other recourse has proven ineffective.

5: Defending the Weak - The Prophetic Mandates

Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,

ISA 1:17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow. Isaiah 1:16-17

Israel was routinely chastised for allowing the poor and weak to be oppressed. Our secular society recognizes the importance of defending the powerless. If this requires violence, should we do it? I think the case for a nonviolent ethic is so weak that it would be absolutely evil to avoid helping those in trouble, even if it involved violence.

6: Being Realistic

I don't think the case for Jesus-as-pacifist can be made. However, I realize that I am probably not seeing everything, so I invite further discussion on this topic. Is there a biblical case for nonviolence? What about the prophetic mandates to defend the fatherless and oppressed?

[Theology | Politics | Human Rights | Justin | 9:58 pm | ]

1. Overturning the moneychanger’s tables
   I have been confronted quite frequently with questions about the Christian view on war. Tonight I see a interesting study posted at Radical Congruency on the toplic. Radical Congruency » What Jesus Said About Violence, Nonviolence, Pacifism, etc It is…

   Trackback by Fingertoe.com — Wednesday, September 1, 2004 @ 12:43 am

2. Good post, Justin! I’m gonna try not to enter this thread [whoops!], but I wanted to make a couple of points:

   1) Good post.
   2) Jesus didn’t tell them to take swords, but little daggers. I think he was being ironic, “Yeah, bring a tooth-pick to fight the Roman army; hey, grab two!”
   3) Have you read any of the standard Christian non-violence promoters?
   4) Is violence the only way to “protect” the defenseless?
   5) The whip thing? You non-pacifists can’t seriously still be going on about that. ;o)

   Comment by graham — Wednesday, September 1, 2004 @ 1:30 am