I came across a Facebook post by a guy who could be
reasonably described as a militant pacifist.
He’s a pretty typical theological liberal who has a bit of a
following. In this case he decided to
take the occasion of Memorial Day to post about pacifism, and, as happens so
often crossed over into the pompous. I
love it when folks who take a very flexible view of Biblical Authority and lean
toward a flexible and very non literal interpretation of the Biblical text, get
all “Thus saith the Lord” and start making pronouncements. In that spirit, I offer a few quotes.
“For the record: When John 15 says that "No one has
greater love than to give up one’s life for one’s friends"-- there is no
biblical way to apply this to war.”
This is the opening line.
No room for any other possible interpretation, no room for grace or
differing opinions, just “there is no biblical way”. Humble, yes?
“Applying this passage to soldiers and war has no biblical
legs to walk on.”
Again, I’m right, you’re wrong. No other options allowed.
“…that life is a gift. To call it a gift is to imply that we
did not earn it. Life is grace.”
First, I’ll point out that this statement is incompatible
with anyone who claims Christ and supports abortion.
Second, this ignores the fact that the Bible clearly
delegates the taking of life (under certain circumstances) to humans of human
agencies.
“May we see this resurrection potential all around us!”
One wonders what the author means by “resurrection potential”? As well as what view he has about the
resurrection.
“Many whose motives were pure, believing that this sort of
sacrifice was Your will. May those of us who claim to be peacemakers remember
that soldiers of any nation usually believe that their fight is for a moral
good.”
Of course, no matter what their motives are/were, they we’re
wrong and we the enlightened are correct.
As pointed out earlier these folks offer no room for disagreement with
their enlightened view.
“…also being committed to re-incorporating veterans into our
Christian communities.”
Because at this point these folks have decided that veterans
are excluded from “our Christian communities”.
How generous. I suspect that very
few Christian veterans would want to be included in this type of “Christian
community”, but I could be wrong.
“…name evil and we discourage followers of Jesus from any
vocation that might require violence.”
Because vocations like law enforcement and the military are “evil”. Why would anyone want Christians involved
in those vocations? Lord knows we want
more atheist cops out there.
“At the same time, we refuse to distance ourselves from
those who have taken part in the way of Empire.”
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that while he might
distance himself from some random military member, he’d be in line to embrace
P-BO, Hillary, Bernie, or any other left wing politicians who control much of
what he calls “empire”. I’d also
suspect he doesn’t keep the same distance between himself and abortion
providers either.
“May we be people who lay down our pacifistic pride, and
follow the model of our Savior by stretching out our arms as a gesture of love,
openness, and hospitality.”
Let’s start with his acknowledgement of the notion that
pacifists (as shown by his earlier quotes) tend toward a prideful superiority
when talking (down) to the unenlightened.
This also ignores the fact that he has slammed the doors to anyone who
might have a differing view on the relevant Biblical texts.
So, in closing, why are so many pacifists pompous folks who
want to impose their opinion about interpretations of Biblical texts on the
rest of us, while actively excluding any other possible interpretation from
even being considered?
2 comments:
Perhaps for the same reason that so many conservatives don't allow room for people to disagree with them: They are absolutely certain that their opinion is not only their opinion, but that it is a fact and that they can safely speak for God on the point without fear of being mistaken.
I say that such arrogance crosses a line from mere confidence in your human opinion to a blasphemous presumption that your human opinion is the same as God's Word. And I say it is a dangerous line to cross, whether your are a liberal doing so on Jesus' clear teachings of war or a conservative.
Dan
Blah, blah, blah. The same old accusations of those with a more accurate understanding of Scripture. I can say this because time and again the people Dan accuses have provided solid Biblical support for their positions while all Dan can do is pretend they don't allow room for disagreement. This is absolute crap, of the "bearing false witness" variety Dan hypocritically discourages in others. It is also lacking the level of Christian grace Dan upon which Dan insists.
Conservatives allow all sorts of room for disagreement. The reality is that the Dans of the world don't provide justification for their positions, no true counter argument to the positions of conservatives. We are not obliged to give respect to the vague and ambiguous put forth as "evidence", especially when the standard for evidence demanded of the conservatives is disproportionately more stringent.
In the meantime, the certainty of the conservative in his opinion is due to the evidence he is willing and able to present, even though the "progressive" will just wave it off without an actual argument of substance.
There's no arrogance in the confidence of a conservative who is ready to defend his position and does so well and easily. There IS arrogance, however, in Dan in daring to condescend to those who actually meet his draconian standards of proof. It isn't that our "opinion" is the same as God's Word. It is that God's Word is the basis of our position. We demonstrate that it is. You don't demonstrate that it is not.
Post a Comment