Drew
Member
Staff note: these off-topic posts were split from Why are Christians mostly Republicans?.
Taking the second item first: I do not dispute that Democratic governments are any less militaristic than Republican ones. What I am saying is that the typical Republican citizen is more "hawkish" - and therefore more out of line with Biblical principles - that the typical Democratic citizen. Again, I have no proof of this - it is merely my anecdotal experience.
Now lets talk about God and Jesus. I trust you should know that I am perfectly aware that the God of the Old Testament encouraged military behaviour. But the Bible is not a set of timeless truths. The fact that God promoted military action in the specific context of Israel before the cross is certainly not grounds for concluding that He generally approves of military force.
To the extent that one can argue that God's "militaristic" support of Israel was a necessary, although undesirable, aspect of His control of history that leads to the cross, one can indeed agree with Jesus that membership in the newly inaugurated kingdom of God involves rejection of the use of force:
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.
Notwithstanding the past, Jesus is saying that in the Kingdom He has just initiated, the use of force is simply not part of the kingdom agenda.
I made this argument in another thread and there was no response to it. I think I know why.
This "God is the same then, now, and forever" is an appealing slogan, but it is not really correct in the sense that matters here. Yes, God's character does not change. But that does not mean that what He is doing in the world remains consistent over all history - it clearly does not. As just one example: the Law of Moses has been rescinded.
Jesus is indeed a pacifist even though the Father may have needed to use military force under the old covenant in order to bring about His greater plan of redemption of all creation.
Consider an oncologist who reluctantly prescribes painful chemotherapy to a patient. The chemotherapy is a "necessary evil" - the oncologist has no option to save the life of his patient other than by "poisoning" him. But once the patient is fully healed, can we conclude that the doctor wants to keep giving him chemotherapy? Of course not - the goal of the original chemotherapy has been achieved and no caring doctor will subject his patient to needless pain.
I suggest the situation is analagous to the Biblical narrative - God had no choice but to use violent means to steer history in the direction that lead to the cross. But this side of the cross, the New Testament is quite clear: the use of military force is inconsistent with the newly inaugurated kingdom of God.
You are, I believe, mistaken in your assessment that "Jesus is not a pacifist" and I am quite confident Biblical exegesis supports this. And your statements about the two Presidents Bush and President Clinton miss my intended point.Ridiculous. First, Republican president George W. Bush fought two wars with the same-sized military Clinton left behind, which was only 40% the size it was under George H.W. Bush. GWB prosecuted those wars without increasing fighting material production -- the tanks, guns, planes and ships that make such prosecution possible. GWB never even considered instituting the draft, though the fear mongers of the left constantly raised the improbability as a ghostly certainty. Secondly, you may recall that God fought for Israel but He also encouraged them to arm themselves for protection, the best example being the first census by which God raised a 600,000 man army for His chosen people. God is the same today, yesterday and forever. Jesus is God. Jesus is not a pacifist. He desires His people to be prepared to defend themselves, which is not the same thing as being militaristic.
Taking the second item first: I do not dispute that Democratic governments are any less militaristic than Republican ones. What I am saying is that the typical Republican citizen is more "hawkish" - and therefore more out of line with Biblical principles - that the typical Democratic citizen. Again, I have no proof of this - it is merely my anecdotal experience.
Now lets talk about God and Jesus. I trust you should know that I am perfectly aware that the God of the Old Testament encouraged military behaviour. But the Bible is not a set of timeless truths. The fact that God promoted military action in the specific context of Israel before the cross is certainly not grounds for concluding that He generally approves of military force.
To the extent that one can argue that God's "militaristic" support of Israel was a necessary, although undesirable, aspect of His control of history that leads to the cross, one can indeed agree with Jesus that membership in the newly inaugurated kingdom of God involves rejection of the use of force:
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.
Notwithstanding the past, Jesus is saying that in the Kingdom He has just initiated, the use of force is simply not part of the kingdom agenda.
I made this argument in another thread and there was no response to it. I think I know why.
This "God is the same then, now, and forever" is an appealing slogan, but it is not really correct in the sense that matters here. Yes, God's character does not change. But that does not mean that what He is doing in the world remains consistent over all history - it clearly does not. As just one example: the Law of Moses has been rescinded.
Jesus is indeed a pacifist even though the Father may have needed to use military force under the old covenant in order to bring about His greater plan of redemption of all creation.
Consider an oncologist who reluctantly prescribes painful chemotherapy to a patient. The chemotherapy is a "necessary evil" - the oncologist has no option to save the life of his patient other than by "poisoning" him. But once the patient is fully healed, can we conclude that the doctor wants to keep giving him chemotherapy? Of course not - the goal of the original chemotherapy has been achieved and no caring doctor will subject his patient to needless pain.
I suggest the situation is analagous to the Biblical narrative - God had no choice but to use violent means to steer history in the direction that lead to the cross. But this side of the cross, the New Testament is quite clear: the use of military force is inconsistent with the newly inaugurated kingdom of God.
Last edited by a moderator: