tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post8800390569544445173..comments2023-12-08T04:43:40.135-06:00Comments on The Fire and the Rose: Why I am uncomfortable with the label “pacifist”: a missiological-messianic critique of universal ethical theoriesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-56995697294156342009-01-23T14:57:00.000-06:002009-01-23T14:57:00.000-06:00David,Thanks for the response. I think that i'm g...David,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the response. I think that i'm getting closer to understanding your take on this. If you would indulge my curiousity a bit more, i would really appreciate it. <BR/><BR/>1.) How can the community draw on philosophical ethical theories for use within the community, and not somehow "absorb" them within their self-understanding as a community? <BR/><BR/>I know that you are wanting to guard against letting anything else define the nature of the ecclesial community, but doesn't the act of translation itself require such an amalgamation? For example, when engaging in ethical reasoning with people, Jesus used rhetorical strategies common at the time, like a fortiori reasoning ("from the lesser to the greater"). <BR/><BR/>Of course, Jesus could easily have simply judged that type of reasoning irrelevant or idolatrous, but instead He condescended and revealed His will through those categories (a microcosm of the incarnation itself perhaps; solidarity with culture). So, all that to say, if the "body" takes it's cue from it's "head," how can the body argue that such a strict separation is possible and preferable, other than in theory? <BR/><BR/>I hope this doesn't sound combative. In truth, i find myself resonating with much of what you say, but think it is worth my time to probe a bit more. <BR/><BR/>I have a couple other q's but you might answer them if you would respond to this query. Thanks for the great blog David. <BR/><BR/>Blessings, DerekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-30779121805956524182009-01-23T09:22:00.000-06:002009-01-23T09:22:00.000-06:00Yet we are all one in Christ Jesus simul peccator ...Yet we are all one in Christ Jesus <I>simul peccator et iustia</I>. And moreover, quite literally couched in this world. While not denying what you're wanting to say in principle, I'm not sure how in practice you're able to avoid something close to legalism.<BR/><BR/>Saint Paul, like it or not, was as much a proponent of situational ethics (understood in light of Christ) as anything else.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-48733154948643216782009-01-22T16:22:00.000-06:002009-01-22T16:22:00.000-06:00brainofdtrain:I would say that, in principle, we h...brainofdtrain:<BR/><BR/>I would say that, in principle, we have to be open to that concrete possibility. Though I would add that the conditions for this possibility are as difficult to imagine as the eschatological new creation is. Which is another way of saying that such possibilities cannot be described ahead of time by ethicists and systematicians, which is why Barth was wrong to specify a situation where violence would be justifiable in Church Dogmatics III/4.<BR/><BR/>In a sense, what I'm doing is undermining all situational ethics. If a Christian is going to speak about ethics, they can speak about (1) Jesus Christ and (2) the ontology of the ethical person. What they cannot do is then describe situations and explain what a person should or should not do in that situation. Such efforts should go under the description of philosophical ethics; they are not part of the self-understanding of the ecclesial community, even if followers of Christ draw upon them at times. Christian ethics must be radically different, corresponding to the radicality of Paul's statement that we are all one in Christ Jesus. Christian ethics is a theological exploration of precisely that axiom: that we are one in Christ Jesus.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-1594010776007510952009-01-22T14:03:00.000-06:002009-01-22T14:03:00.000-06:00David,So i'm clear, do you think that even though ...David,<BR/><BR/>So i'm clear, do you think that even though disciples will "smell like pacifists," there may be times when faithful translation of the fidelity to the messiah in various cultures may go against this "limit set by Jesus himself?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-88330681579748442272009-01-19T22:12:00.000-06:002009-01-19T22:12:00.000-06:00Since you've eliminated the entire tradition of th...Since you've eliminated the entire tradition of thought on this subject that you don't agree with on account of its self-evident lack of merit, what's the point of writing the blog post? I would think very carefully before pronouncing anything Thomas said to be self-evidently wrong.<BR/><BR/>I say this only to point out the fact that your arguments for some kind of practical pacificism lose all logical force at this point. If you think anon is using "the money-changers story as a justification for being a violent asshole" then I suggest you extend the logic of the gospel more thoroughly to your blog comments and grant him a bit more charity. He's simply pointing out that the situation is more complicated than a facile, absolute ethic of pacificism based on a limited reading of the imitatio Christi, which I thought was your point in writing this article.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03835110663089845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-70779846109295680102009-01-14T06:09:00.000-06:002009-01-14T06:09:00.000-06:00And for further clarificaton, by seeing your views...And for further clarificaton, by seeing your views as "all or nothing" I simply am reacting to the statement: "I do not believe Christians can or should serve in the military." <BR/><BR/>I want to say this too, but I find myself running smack into the reality of the two kingdoms when I do.<BR/><BR/>Good point, incidentally, on the contextualization (not relativizaton) of revelation across cultural divides.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-18157864901597134292009-01-13T13:31:00.000-06:002009-01-13T13:31:00.000-06:00Also, shouldn't it be: "messianic-pneumatic theolo...Also, shouldn't it be: "messianic-pneumatic theology of evangelical fidelity to the apocalyptic event of the <B>eschatological</B> new creation"? Unless, of course, you were wanting to modify only the adjective <I>new</I>…Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-12431489711133608032009-01-13T13:22:00.000-06:002009-01-13T13:22:00.000-06:00I'm in general agreement that "fidelity to Christ ...I'm in general agreement that "fidelity to Christ will look and smell like pacifism," insofar as we define pacifism as "opposition to war or violence as a means of solving disputes." <BR/><BR/>It doesn't seem to me that policing efforts and individual cases of self-defense are within the purview of a pacifist ethic. Maybe there's a better word out there for what I desire, i.e., anti-war, versus what it sounds like you're aiming at — all or nothing.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm a little cynical about us being able to resolve this one: pacifism has its problems, but what's the alternative? I <A HREF="http://growinggrace-full.blogspot.com/2008/08/peace-its-whats-for-dinner-in-both.html" REL="nofollow">wrote about this</A> not too long ago myself.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the good post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-71925248128299975712009-01-08T22:10:00.000-06:002009-01-08T22:10:00.000-06:00All analogies have their shortcomings as does this...All analogies have their shortcomings as does this one, but you point to the problem of your own argument through its same critique. The problem in each case has to do with slavery. This can happen with or without an oath, making the oath a non-factor. Now the oath is only a problem when it constitutes blind robotic loyalty (i.e. slavery) and it is followed even when in direct contradiction to following Christ. As I stated before being in the military does not mandate that you kill anyone and does not have to be in direct contradiction to following Christ. Plenty of jobs exist within the Armed Forces that have nothing to do with the use of "harmful force" which you label as sin. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore the oath taken by military members is essentially identical oath taken by the President (or anyone in public office rather) "to support and defend the Constitution". I just wanted to make this clear and point out the shortcomings associated with your definition of pacifism. Based on your definition it seems that members of the police force could also not be Christian because they use harmful force to do their jobs (and I’m sure they too take some kind of oath).<BR/><BR/>Bringing the history of the Christian church into the fray neither adds weight to your argument nor works to the demise of my point. People acting in the name of Christianity have done many terrible things with or without using harmful force--and I would concede that none who has done so should be considered as being truly Christian.<BR/><BR/>As I stated before I respect the pacifist position. On the whole, choosing to not cause harm to someone is far closer to Christ's life and teaching then the opposite case, but the pacifist position comes increasingly close to become a system in itself, particularly when you look at refusing to use force (as a last resort I hope) to defend the defenseless. To turn the other cheek and thus your eyes away from can’t possibly be the answer. This is totally cliché but I believe things like the Holocaust (where force seems to be the only answer) must be stopped at any cost. That I guess is where we may differ fundamentally. <BR/><BR/>I will give up now. Thanks for readingwaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11138253281347542725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-50520892835572269912009-01-08T18:28:00.000-06:002009-01-08T18:28:00.000-06:00Wag:Your analogy between the military and money in...Wag:<BR/><BR/>Your analogy between the military and money in the bank account makes no sense whatsoever. Do you take an oath of allegiance to your money? No, of course not. It's not money itself that Jesus attacks; it is the sin in which we view that money as our personal possession with which we can dispose as we please. When that happens, we inevitably become the "slaves" of our possessions. The problem with taking an oath of military service is that we inevitably become the "slaves" of the military leaders. Our oath of allegiance to these leaders binds us to obey them when they command us to kill our enemies.<BR/><BR/>Now, of course, the problem is that Jesus commands something quite different: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Throughout history, as I'm sure you know, Christians have justified military service with the notion that the killing of our enemies is, in fact, our way of loving them. I take it as pretty much self-evident that such an argument has no merit.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, my entire argument, as you rightly stated, is against the notion of a universal ethical law. But as I also said, I think that fidelity to Christ will "look and smell" like pacifism. In that sense, faithfulness to Christ will have to be practically pacifist. That's a limit set by the biblical witness - more specifically, by Jesus himself. Obviously you disagree. In that case, show me that your exegesis is more faithful to the event of God's self-revelation in Jesus and isn't simply a capitulation to things like "natural law," "Christian tradition," etc.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-2738399535463588202009-01-08T10:20:00.000-06:002009-01-08T10:20:00.000-06:00While I don't have any concern for the bulk of you...While I don't have any concern for the bulk of your argument, I must say that I was perplexed by the utter ignorance associated with your opening statement, “I am indeed a pacifist: I do not believe Christians can or should serve in the military...." When did military service become mutually exclusive to loving and serving Jesus Christ as Savior? If it boils down to the use of "harmful force as sinful" then it is easy to see that there are countless roles of both the military and its service members that doing nothing of the sort (humanitarian and peace keeping roles in addition to its involvement in scientific research come to mind at the military level). It is even easier to think of these types of roles on the individual level (doctors, lawyers, scientists, finance personnel, etc...) What runs most glaringly counter to your rejection of the compatibility of Christianity with military service is the role of military chaplain (which I'm sure that you undoubtedly have your opinion on). <BR/>Regardless of this fact, I believe there is a larger issue at play when it comes to this blanket statement concerning Christianity and military service. It may come out clearer by analogy. Your statement is analogous to someone stating that they didn't believe that a Christian could have more than $5 dollars in their bank account because you can’t serve two masters, God and Money. It is ironic that it's statements like these (yours concerning pacifism included) that go about doing exactly what you are stating you are against, erecting a system in place of a person. I’ve addressed primarily the “can” serve in the military rather than the “should”. The “should” of course represents an individual choice and as such it is entirely up to that individual. I think that the same goes for pacifism. It is an individual choice, and not one that I am a particularly against, but it is not a pre-requisite for serving Christ. It is a challenging and honorable position to take—again analogous to the act of self-imposed poverty—and each have their own purpose and associated blessings, but neither should to be accepted as universals. I believe this is true because, in addition to the blessings associated with serving Christ by taking either respective position, they by definition prohibit one’s ability to serve Christ in other ways. Poverty does not have the ability to serve Christ and bless others through philanthropy, and similarly, a pacifist is limited in their means and may not be able to help defend a defenseless victim. That’s my two-cent rant. Thanks.waghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11138253281347542725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-85265809687798740572009-01-08T08:39:00.000-06:002009-01-08T08:39:00.000-06:00Ry,I would say I am certainly animated by the same...Ry,<BR/><BR/>I would say I am certainly animated by the same spirit that animates Barth's concerns in CD III/4. But the concern is more directly related to Bultmann, who is more vocal on this matter.<BR/><BR/>You could say that I am trying to avoid any ethical worldview, in the same way that I think we should avoid any intellectual worldview. Both are equally departures from the gospel, in that they presume a posture or perspective from some Olympian height, abstracted from historical particularity. It seems to me that far too many theologians are quite willing to reject theological worldviews but remain attached to ethical worldviews on the basis of their specific theological commitments. This is a widespread tendency: we're OK with our theology being culturally and historically situated, but we want a universal ethics that is somehow above such factors.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-4432265890633913552009-01-08T08:34:00.000-06:002009-01-08T08:34:00.000-06:00Travis,Ah, I see. I assume you're pleased, then? ...Travis,<BR/><BR/>Ah, I see. I assume you're pleased, then? :)David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-6313898420930672862009-01-08T08:29:00.000-06:002009-01-08T08:29:00.000-06:00Good post, David. I've been reading Yoder's book o...Good post, David. I've been reading Yoder's book on Barth so I've been thinking about similar issues. <BR/><BR/>It seems Barth's worry is quite similar to yours, namely, the idea that absolute pacifist positions tend toward what amounts to an ethical "system." From what I can tell, Barth wants to leave open the possibility for God to speak otherwise. So, this is basically a problem of God's freedom for Barth.<BR/><BR/>Yoder points out that Barth really had no idea what this would look like, which of course is part of it. If Barth had a good idea what it would look like for God in God's freedom to speak a different word then God wouldn't be so free after all! This would become just another form of casuistry, something that Barth is keen on trying to avoid. <BR/><BR/>Yoder also points out that Barth was much less skeptical of Christian participation in war than other forms of violence.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, good post. I guess I'm wondering how you see your position vis a vis Barth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-30572461755993261672009-01-08T05:35:00.000-06:002009-01-08T05:35:00.000-06:00Not one use of the term 'dialectical'!Not one use of the term 'dialectical'!W. Travis McMakenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347103855436761304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-21125146671030037812009-01-07T21:25:00.000-06:002009-01-07T21:25:00.000-06:00Same here. I haven't the faintest clue.Same here. I haven't the faintest clue.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-90415564177208472922009-01-07T15:12:00.000-06:002009-01-07T15:12:00.000-06:00I want to know what Travis is talking about.I want to know what Travis is talking about.Haldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936185959033443640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-84728802425253391932009-01-07T11:39:00.000-06:002009-01-07T11:39:00.000-06:00Anon:How exactly did I fall into "culutral [sic] n...Anon:<BR/><BR/>How exactly did I fall into "culutral [sic] norms"? Unless you think that living in community in self-donating love for neighbor and enemy is a cultural norm -- in which case, I have to ask, how is it living in the New Jerusalem?<BR/><BR/>Also, where exactly do you get the idea that those two examples from the gospels are things to which Jesus calls us? I very quickly get exasperated with people who want to use the money-changers story as a justification for being a violent asshole, which is pretty much what I hear you advocating. Unfortunately, I don't see that justified anywhere else in the Bible. Jesus gives no such command. He says "love your neighbor" and "love your enemies." That's it.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-79520622011885263252009-01-07T11:32:00.000-06:002009-01-07T11:32:00.000-06:00The high point of the essay was, "I propose that w...The high point of the essay was, "I propose that we respond in each new moment in obedience to the Messiah." Unfortunately the essay then imeediately backed off into culutral norms. <BR/>Some of the difficult passages in the NT are when Jesus made a whip of cords, over threw the money changers and proceeded to drive the people out or when he tells the foriegn woman whose daughter is sick to basically bugger off. And yet Jesus is acting in obedience to the HS, I think if our response does not allow us to to defy cultural norms temporarily we do not yet 'live to God.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-23876340899247759982009-01-07T08:34:00.000-06:002009-01-07T08:34:00.000-06:00taking an oath of obedience to anyone apart from C...<I>taking an oath of obedience to anyone apart from Christ (which precludes participation in the government and military, for example)</I><BR/>Not to mention precluding ordination in episcopal churches, or women getting married using traditionally-worded promises.byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-48164165413389658852009-01-07T04:10:00.000-06:002009-01-07T04:10:00.000-06:00I learned an ethic, which was labeled "Faith ethic...I learned an ethic, which was labeled "Faith ethics;" it is rather similar to what you are getting at --- albeit coming at it a different way.<BR/><BR/>The point of commonality, is the urge to get away from "decision-centered ethics" and engage in an "ethical-norm" that is informed and shaped by our union with Christ, through the power and 'shedding abroad of the Spirit' --- thus reshaping and reconstituting 'our' values with the 'New Creation's' values --- providing daily living (even missional) with a shape that takes its cue from the apocalyptic future, inbreaking into the crossroads of the present.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-47843706707789610562009-01-06T19:44:00.000-06:002009-01-06T19:44:00.000-06:00Think about it - it will come to you. ;-)Think about it - it will come to you. ;-)W. Travis McMakenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347103855436761304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-21266396777654319582009-01-06T18:03:00.000-06:002009-01-06T18:03:00.000-06:00What's missing, exactly?What's missing, exactly?David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-74957426017502125012009-01-06T17:56:00.000-06:002009-01-06T17:56:00.000-06:00David, there is a word missing from your title - i...David, there is a word missing from your title - indeed, from the essay altogether! I expect you to rectify the situation in some appropriate way.W. Travis McMakenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347103855436761304noreply@blogger.com