The Danger of Religions

Yesterday's inside story in Living section of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution posed the question "What's the most dangerous idea in religion?" Offering responses to the question, the AJC posted a broad mix of answers.

Self-help idol and pop-psychologist, Dr. Wayne Dyer, threw his ingredient in the pot:  "Follow our rules or else."  By that Dr. Dyer means not a personal moral compass by which to ethically act. 

Rather, he means that the way to connect to God is by following your own light and not that of another person and especially not of organized religion. 

Hence, Dyer seems to think the most dangerous idea in religion is religion's institutionalism. For him, it keeps us from God rather than connecting us with Him.

Another popular voice the AJC opted to post was that of Rabbi Harold Kushner.  The Jewish Rabbi's fame stems primarily of his best seller, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People."

Rabbi Kushner thinks the most dangerous idea is thinking one's religion is right.  He says:  "There's a sense that in order for me to be right, everyone who disagrees with me is wrong...If I believe that, I have to believe that other people's religions are worthless, invalid."  I have two observations for the Rabbi's dangerous idea. 

First, the validity of my position is not dependent upon the invalidity of another's.  Others being wrong does not automatically make me right.  Heck, theoretically we could all be wrong. 

However, it stands theoretically impossible for us all to be right.  Thus, the inclusiveness of Rabbi Kushner and the exclusiveness of The Rabbi from Galilee cannot both be right.

Second, Rabbi Kushner appears to embrace the dangerous idea he despises.  That is, Rabbi Kushner believes his religion of inclusiveness is right, contra my religion of exclusiveness--at least, that's how I read his concern.  But if inclusiveness is right and exclusiveness is wrong, how is it that Rabbi Kushner escapes his own criticism?

Dr. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is Professor of Law, Emory University and a world renowned scholar of Islam and Human Rights.  His most dangerous idea of religion is that of converting others to one's religion.  He says: 

"The whole idea of missionary work is a very loaded and dangerous idea because it's often presented as simply presenting beliefs for someone to accept or reject.  It's always embedded in power.  Those who have the ability to proselytize to others are more powerful than others."

I guess that means our good Professor thinks Southern Baptists--not to mention the ten of thousands of other missionaries from the Church at large--epitomizes this dangerous idea. 

He goes on to say:  "You don't find Muslims coming to proselytize in the United States.  But you find Americans going to all sorts of Muslim countries."  I'm sure some Muslims do not do so.  Some very well may do so.  Others come with motives far worse than preaching their message and I need not say any more than that.

Nonetheless, my question for Professor An-Na'im is, if, given the opportunity to do so without fear of reprisal or persecution--that is, if Muslims were in control--would Muslims proselytize?  I think they not only would, they, in fact, do.

Deepak Chopra, a spiritual guide for millions, embraces a quasi-eastern spirituality mixed with a spoonful of Western medicine.  Think of him as a ritzy, upper-class Buddhist. 

Chopra believes the most dangerous idea in religion is that "my God is the only true God and my religion is the only true religion."  Simply put, a tribal view of God is the most dangerous idea out there.  The same observation for our Rabbi Kushner I offered seem to fit just as well our Buddhist evangelist here.

The last contribution the AJC posted of religion's most dangerous idea comes from Southern Baptist's own Dr. Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention.  The dangerous idea Dr. Land offers strangely harmonizes with every other contributor-- with the possible exception of radical Islam--a surprise, no doubt, to the AJC itself.  Dr. Land says: 

"The most dangerous idea in religion is the idea that violent, coercive force is permissive in the name of God--any God."

Freedom of religion remains a mainstay of intrinsic Baptist belief.  Baptists insist with worshippers like Kushner, Chopra and Dyer that no religion, by law, be considered more worthy than any other religion. 

The difference is that, while Baptists both agree with and will fight for others' right to worship the way they see fit, the way they see fit can ultimately only be right and proper if it pleases the God of the Bible.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[perry mccall]

Thanks for the post! What a great answer by Dr. Land!!

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

I find it ironic that Land calls violence in the name of God (any God) "dangerous," when Land himself endorses violence in the name of God. He is a huge supporter of the war in Iraq, supports the torture of anyone the pres. decides is an "enemy combatant," etc. All this is dangerous and evil--but Land supports it.

[Tripp Spangler]

Good post Peter!

Thanks for it.

[Richard Coords]

Michael,

Just to clarify my understanding of your beliefs, when Israel went into the Promised Land, would you have fought? While Moses raised his arms, would you have slain Amalekites left and right? Would you have slain your fellow man in the name of the Lord?

[Richard Coords]

To add,

Besides Caleb vs. the Canaanites and Moses vs. the Amalekites, would you have done like David and sliced Goliath's head off, all in the name of the Lord?

[Byroniac]

This was a good post, and I enjoyed reading it.

[Tripp Spangler]

Michael,

One can be against violence in the name of God, but also support wars that they see as being just. Rather you see the Iraq War as being a just war or not has to be your own determination. But some see it as a just war...and therefore, Land is not contradicting himself. If Land, like President Bush, believes we are helping the citizens of Iraq achieve freedom and liberty opposite those who want to continue to hold them in oppression...Land is in no way supporting something that is "dangerous" or "evil".

Those terms are not relative.

[peter]

All,

I appreciate all the posivtive remarks, Guys. And, so sorry I've been rather an absentee host.

I further encourage some more dialog concerning "war & peace" that Michael's comment spawned from Richard and Tripp. Presently, I possess an interest in "War & Peace" and historic views Baptists have embraced. I hope in the future to post on this very subject.

Grace to all of you. With that, I am...

Peter

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

I was commenting only on Land's self-contradictions not starting a thread on war and peace. The question of how to reconcile the Old Testament wars with Jesus' commands on peacemaking is a very old one that is far too complex for this space. I see revelation as unfolding in stages. The prophets all predict the age of the Messiah as an age of peace and the followers of the Messiah as those who "study war no more." Christians confess that Jesus is that Messiah and if we follow him, we must be peacemakers--this full revelation was prepared for by the Old Testament even though it goes beyond the Old Testament.
As for the Book of Revelation: I have written on its message of peace here: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/violence-nonviolence-in-revelation-pt-1/
and here: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/violence-nonviolence-in-revelation-pt-2/

And given a good bibliography to these issues in Revelation here: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/bibliography-on-revelation/

Just War Theory is NOT a biblical category, but a later theory invented by Stoic philosophers and first imported into Christianity by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in the 5th C. For the 1st 350 years of church history, almost all Christians were pacifists. The classic text on this is Roland Bainton's, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace. So, I reject Just War Theory for the nonviolence of Jesus.
However, I discuss how Iraq fails even the lesser morality of JWT here: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/bibliography-on-revelation/

and here: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/a-just-war-case-against-the-iraq-war-p-2/

I discuss why the "military Bibles" put out by Lifeway are idolatrous even from a Just War position here:
http://levellers.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/idolatrous-nationalism-from-sbc-publishing-house/

Finally, my teacher, the great Glen H. Stassen, figured out long ago that the discussion/debate between pacifists and Just War Theorists was whether to make war, if ever, when, and with what restrictions. But the major thrust of the Bible's teaching is on actively making peace. So, he has forged "Just Peacemaking Practices" agreed to by both pacifists and just war theorists. They don't always work and if they fail and war breaks out pacifists will refuse to fight and JWTers will decide on a case by case basis. But, with the practices of Just Peacemaking front and center, many wars can be prevented. I summarize these practices here:

http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/25/the-practices-of-just-peacemaking/

Sorry to cite myself all over the place, but I was asked many sharp questions (which is cool) that could not be answered easily in a comments section.

I also ask that Southern Baptists look at the article on War and Peace in the Baptist Faith and Message: XIX in the 1925 edition, XVI in the '63 and '00 edition. Each edition watered the statement down some from the previous edition, but even in the latest version it is a strong statement on peacemaking. If Southern Baptists treated THAT article in as creedal a fashion as some others in the BF& M, how many convention employees and seminary profs would have to either repent or be fired? I contend that Land would head the list.

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Also, NOT ONE of you addressed my biggest accusation concerning Land--that he supports torture. Tortue is a HUGE violation of Just War theory, not to mention the higher standards of gospel nonviolence. Torture in the name of God is blasphemy. Ergo, Land's support of torture is blasphemous.

[volfan007]

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God in the ot told the israelites to go to war many times. in fact, He even told the israelites that He would fight for them. one time, the Lord told the israelites to wipe the canaanite people off the face of the earth.

i too desire peace. i too believe that all christians should desire peace and strive to have it. but, sometimes war is justified. one day, Jesus will return and defeat a mighty army of the earth. thier blood will run as high as a horses bridle.

michael, do you believe in judgement and hell? where the Lord sends people to hell to suffer the fires of punishment forever?

i dont think that there's anything pacifist about God. of course, He desires peace as we see in the scriptures as He asks us to pray for peace. but, God is also a mighty warrior....a mighty warrior...as we see in the bible.

david

[Richard Coords]

2nd Kings 19:35: "That night the angel of the LORD went out to the Assyrian camp and killed 185,000 Assyrian troops. When the surviving Assyrians F59 woke up the next morning, they found corpses everywhere." [New Living Translation]

I'm not saying that killing someone is a good thing, and neither does God who says that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. (Ezekiel 18:23)

Here is my concern, if we take the "real" Gospel, of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and substitute it with a Gospel of Pacifism, then we have erected a false Gospel, and a curse befalls the one carrying it. (Galatians 1:6-9)

Michael, I asked simple Yes/No questions. You would garner a lot more respect by answering questions honestly, candidly and openly, rather than to defer to complexities and nuances, and progressive revelations.

[Byroniac]

Well, I was pondering what to comment, but Volfan007 pretty much said it all (with the other responses).

[Richard Coords]

Michael,

Here is another passage that I would like for you to explain:

"The LORD left certain nations in the land to test those Israelites who had not participated in the wars of Canaan. He did this to teach warfare to generations of Israelites who had no experience in battle. These were the nations: the Philistines (those living under the five Philistine rulers), all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites living in the hill country of Lebanon from Mount Baal-hermon to Lebo-hamath. These people were left to test the Israelites—to see whether they would obey the commands the LORD had given to their ancestors through Moses." (Judges 3:1-4, New Living Translation)

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

I know I haven't been in on this discussion so far, so I hope you will forgive my intrusion.

I don't think its fair to suggest that Michael is proposing a "Gospel of Pacifism." It seems clear to me that is not the case. Although coming at it from a different direction, I share in Michael's doubt regarding the possibility of a truly "just war" (let alone the justice in our current war in Iraq). Moreover, his questioning of SB stances on war and peace do not make him a pacifist.

Despite our desires to the contrary, I would argue that the matters of war and peace are too complex to be resolved in the comments of a blog post, certainly not by quoting our choice Bible passages that appear to address the issue. Sometimes "yes" or "no" answers won't work and I think this is one of those situations. Deciding if and how the wars of the OT can be applied to matters of war as citizens in the Kingdom of God is a difficult thing. Deciding if and how the teachings of Jesus to "turn the other cheek" apply to Christian involvement in war is decidedly complex. Let's not oversimplify something so important.

As ones who are not physically in combat right now, we have the liberty and privilege to think about these issues calmly and deeply with some measure of objectivity. I am grateful for the opportunity, though challenged by the endeavor.

Grace and peace to all,

Emily

[Richard Coords]

A New Debate Tactic LOL

45. Too Complex. Declare that your opponent's argument is "too complex." That way, you don't have to answer those thorny Yes/No questions.

[Richard Coords]

By the way, I did NOT publish the list.

Nevertheless, the day that I cannot answer a direct question, is the day that I close my Bible forever.

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

Richard,

I'm sorry you see my comment as a debate tactic. I assure you that my intent is not to avoid the issue. My assertion that the matter is complex is not an excuse, but a reminder. As I was reading, I anticipated Peter's comment section being littered with the debris of "Bible ping-pong"--the unhelpful game where one lobs a "ball" (scripture quote) and the other hits a "ball" back until finally someone gives up and leaves. I was an expert at this in my early education and it did little for resolving arguments or making friends.

I do not deny that one can answer a direct question about war and peace in Scripture. What I deny is the necessity of answering said question with a "yes" or "no." In my opinion, to demand this kind of simplistic answer lowers the level of interaction and subverts real dialogue. As I see it, answering a direct question simplistically is not the measurement of one's loyalty to scripture. Surely we an agree that taking the time to make a reasoned, careful scriptural argument is the best course of action in issues like this.

I hope you have a good weekend. We're enjoying a respite from the mid-western "monsoons" and I am loving the sunshine.

Grace and peace,

Emily

[Richard Coords]

Emily, thanks for your response. However, I'm a huge fan of the yes/no approach. Sometimes people will dance around an issue, and the "yes/no approach" serves to reel a person back in, in order to get them to take a firm stance (which by no means restricts them from giving a detailed follow-up explanation of their answer). Michael has been very vocal about this issue, and therefore I feel that he ought to enter into a dialogue on the matters put to him. Again, He is the one who raised the issue on this post. In order to take my own medicine, I'll offer yes/no answers on the questions put to Michael. Yes, I would have joined in with Caleb and Moses. Yes, I would have cut Goliath's head off, if doing so meant that the Philistines would retreat in horror. Does God hate having to kill someone, or to send them to Hell? Yes. God's will is that men repent. God specifically said that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. However, sometime it becomes necessary. This is precisely why I like the yes/no approach. It prevents me from dancing around.

By the way, the "debate tactics" issue has to do with a prior discussion where we, perhaps, had more fun than what was proper, when we came up with a list of common debate tactics observed. I'm at #45. Long live Colin! :)

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Emily, thanks for trying to come to my rescue (so to speak), but I AM a pacifist, although I prefer to say that I believe in Gospel Nonviolence. Yes or No questions can be helpful if they aren't "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. These were loaded questions. No one knows what one would have done living in another time and place (e.g., in the time of Moses or Joshua) without the full revelation of Jesus Christ. I could ask Richard, "Would you do your duty and marry your dead brother's wife?" "Do you agree with the author of Ecclesiastes that humans and animals share the same fate at death?" "Are you prepared to stone your daughter to death if she is not a virgin on her wedding day?"
In all of those cases Richard could talk about further revelation in Jesus (Heb. 1:1) along with why he eats ham sandwiches, feels free to drink milk with his rare steak, doesn't have his son circumcised on the 8th day after his birth, and wears blended fibre clothes in contradiction to Levitical rules. And I could reply, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; Richard must not really believe the Bible. He is substituting his own Gospel." None of that would be true or fair, but I could play that game if I were just trying to win debating points.
But I am not trying to dodge anything. In the near future, I will write a blog post on the OT and war and the hermeneutical approaches of pacifists (we all begin with Jesus instead of trying to fit Jesus into a mold made without him). I will show that the Canaanite genocide passages are not taken as normative by Just War Theorists any more than they are by Christian pacifists. But all that seemed a bit much to do in the reply section of this blog.
And NO ONE has YET to answer my original point: that Land contradicts himself because of his endorsement of torture.

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

Michael, I should clarify that I felt no need to "come to your rescue." It is apparent to me that you do not need rescuing. :) I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this matter.

Grace and peace,

Emily

P.S. I agree that its appalling that Dr. Land endorses torture.

[peter lumpkins]

Emily,

Welcome! And thank you for your sobering comments.

Michael,

Does it not make you feel good now that you have found yourself unalone here? :^)

As for Dr. Land's inconsistency, Michael, I am unaware--I know I'm revealing my utter ignorance at this point but it is the truth--of his recorded position on torture. Is it on the ERLC site? I'd like to take a look at it.

Honestly, though, I'm unsure how viewing wartime coercion (torture) of the enemy for military info--Please understand, I am definitively *not* arguing here my personal acceptance of torture--and noncoercion in religious matters are to be viewed as a contradiction, since the two deal with entirely different matters and means.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Richard Coords]

Michael,

By your reasoning of drawing an analogy to the revelation of the fulfillment of the Law, which Paul "explicitly" and "repeatedly" stated that we no longer live under the Law, you could use the same reasoning to dispatch with anything else in the Bible that doesn't suit our taste, except for 1 small problem. By drawing an anology to the fulfillment of the Law, we would similarly require "repeated" and "explicit" references of the same kind. Otherwise, wouldn't you be comparing apples to oranges? When the body of the New Testament evidence is observed, your prohibition against military service is NOT repeatedly and explicitly stated. In fact, here is what we DO find. 1) Peter could have ordered the god-fearing Roman Centurion, Cornelious, to quit the military, when they met together, according to Acts chapter 10. Or, John the Baptist could have ordered the Romans soldiers to quit their job, when they asked John the Baptist what to do. (Luke 3:14) I'm very familiar with these arguments because I ran into them with the Jehovah's Witnesses. With progressive revelation, the Jehovah's Witnesses forbid voting, military warfare, blood transfusions, celebration of birthdays, ect.

You asked a yes/no question. So here it is: If I lived under the Law, and God commanded these things, then yes, I would be obligated to follow it according to the enablement of God who commands it. Does that answer your question? However, you still have not answered mine, and you are under no obligation to do so, except for the fact that YOU raised this issue.

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

No, Richard Land raised the issue of the danger of belief in God--any God, he said--commanding killing. I think it ironic that LAND brings this up when he endorses killing and even TORTURE in the name of God.

I would say that warfare IS part of the Old Covenant abolished with Jesus. You'll notice in Ephesians, the only weapons God gives Christians are spiritual ones. The church was almost entirely pacifist for its first 350 years--and during that time the Sermon on the Mount was the most quoted portion (beginning with Paul's paraphrases in Rom. 12). But after that, the Sermon gets quoted less--relegated to the end times or the inner life and the church starts defending empire.
Now, I want you to go to your wife and say, Wife, if we were still under the Law, I would marry my dead brother's Widow and have kids by her that would be his kids.
Go to your daughter and say, Be glad we are no longer under the Law or I would be able to sell you into slavery if the family needed the money! Oh, and if you married a non-Baptist (equivalent to a non-Israelite?) I'd have to kill you both to avoid polluting the Land!
I'd love to see how those conversations go.

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

I don't know, Peter, if Land's statements on torture, which I read in press releases around the time of the controversy around Guantanemo Bay are on his website. He made them in opposition to the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and in opposition to the creation of Evangelicals for Human Rights, the latter of which was started by David P. Gushee, a Southern Baptist who previously worked with Land on a few projects.
As to how these relate to coercion of religious belief, I'll reply along the lines of that great Separate Baptist preacher, John Leland (since you love the Separate Baptists, Peter) in one of his sermons on the Great Commission. If the only methods we are allowed to use in spreading the gospel are those of persuasion and teaching, if no coercion or violence is allowed in this MOST IMPORTANT of tasks, then it cannot be used in other, lesser tasks. Coercion in religious belief violates the image of God in humans--and so does killing them or torturing them. Remember, we worship one who was himself tortured by an imperial state and executed on our behalf.

To kill or torture or condone those who do is to crucify Christ again and heap judgment upon ourselves.

[Richard Coords]

Michael,

It sounds to me like your argument is that God's Law is evil (i.e. selling children into slavery for money, stoning for adultery, taking up your dead brother's wife, ect), and then military service into that "perceived" evil Law, and ultimately saying, see: We no longer live under the Law of Evil, so no more military service. Do I infer correctly?

[Richard Coords]

correction of typo:

It sounds to me like your argument is that God's Law is evil (i.e. selling children into slavery for money, stoning for adultery, taking up your dead brother's wife, ect), and then INCLUDING military service in that "perceived" evil Law, and ultimately saying: See, we no longer live under the Law of Evil, so no more military service. Do I infer correctly?

[Richard Coords]

If I infer correctly, then this is a pretty sneaky strategy. Just throw anything that you don't like into the OT Law, and simply say, "Hey, we know longer live under the Law."

However, your argument suffers from one main point: The apostles never instituted a ban on military service. Why? In fact, when presented with this issue, they never told military men to quit their jobs. (Luke 3:14; Acts 10) Don't you know that if you were in their shoes, that you would have told them to quit.

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

The Law is good--but NOT the Gospel. It was very difficult to quit the Roman military other than by death or retirement (usually after missing some limbs). But we know that thousands of Roman soldiers who became Christians tried to quit the army from the 1st through the 4th centuries and were often martyred for their attempts. We also know that, beginning with the Didache, a non-canonical 1st C. summary of apostolic teaching for new Christians, that candidates for baptism were instructed not to kill even if ordered to do so. The Roman army also served as a police force and some soldiers were able to keep from killing anyone.
We also know that, beginning with the Didache again, and usually quoting Jesus and Paul, the early church forbade any Christian or candidate for baptism from joining the army. (If you were in and couldn't get out, that was seen as different from wanting to join.) Also, no Christian author from the 1st C. until Constantine wrote anything remotely approving of Christians in the army and much against them. There are many summaries of these Church Fathers on this subject collected from the volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Eusebius, the early church historian who thought Constantine hung the moon, was the first Christian author to approve of Christians in the military.
Now, we do not know why Jesus didn't say to the Centurian that he should quit his job. But his healing of the Centurian's slave was itself an act of peacemaking: Here is an ENEMY of Israel, a member of the Occupying Army and Jesus doesn't send in assassins after him like the Zealots would have, or cooperate only grudgingly like the Pharisees, but nor does he suck up to imperial power like Sadducees. He heals his slave--and compliments not his occupation, but his faith.
We also don't know why the apostles didn't tell Cornelius to quit his job. Maybe they believed that Jesus would be coming back too soon to worry about it. After all, we know from Paul's letters that he expected Jesus to return in his lifetime.

The apostles also didn't try to wipe out slavery--Paul only tried to persuade Philemon to free Onesimus and treat him like a Christian brother. Does that make those Christians, like William Wilberforce or John Newton, etc. who worked to abolish slavery "liberals?" Some thought so during their time, including some Baptists like Jesse Mercer (think Mercer University), Richard Furman (Furman University) James P. Boyce and others. But other Baptists, like John Leland, William Garrison, Francis Wayland were abolitionists. Were they "liberal?"
The pro-slavery people, like pro-war people now, argued that anti-slavery Christians, thought the Law was evil and the anti-slavery Christians were constantly accused of not believing the Bible.
It is my belief that most SOUTHERN Baptists (not most Baptists in general) still have a hermeneutic that justifies slavery. Southern Baptists gave up slaves because they lost a war over it--NOT because they learned to read the Bible differently. If they learned to read the Bible in a way that showed slavery for the abominable evil that it is, they would also see that war and killing are just as evil. It takes a Synoptic-centered hermeneutic that let's Jesus have the first word--instead of "fitting Jesus in" to a reading of Scripture and a view of God and the world that was constructed apart from Jesus.

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

Michael,

The reason I agree with you that most Southern Baptists have a hermeneutic that supports slavery is because the same hermeneutic also supports the subjugation of women to men. Its interesting that it is through their work in the abolitionist movement that women began to fight for their own rights. They realized if the Bible's toleration of slavery wasn't the same as endorsing slavery then the Bible's toleration of female subjugation wasn't the same as endorsing it either.

I appreciate your perspective. I have not adopted a nonviolent interpretation of the Gospel (yet), but I have been studying and considering the issue for some time. Thanks for your thoughts.

Grace and peace,

Emily

[peter lumpkins]

Michael & Emily,

Thanks for the engaging comments. Though the post is not about either slavery or gender issues, some enriching conversation needs to take place there. Suffice it for now to say I am unconvinced that "most Southern Baptists have a hermeneutic that supports slavery." Nor Emily, do I think the analogy between slavery and subjugation of women to men can stand under analysis.

Perhaps I can post a short essay soon and we can discuss it. Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Emily, thanks. I agree. Peter, see Willard Swartley's Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Herald Press, 1980) which shows conclusively that the kind of biblical interpretation used to support slavery is exactly the same kind as with war and the subjugation of women. With the last named, as Emily undoubtedly could tell you, often the very same VERSES are used.

[cb scott]

Peter,

Is it ever right to go to war? As a nation? As a person?

cb

[peter lumpkins]

Michael,

Thank you for the recom.

CB,

My answer to all three respectively is: Yes, Yes, Yes. That's not to say, however, that a "but" can be added to either.

Grace,

With that, I am...

Peter

[Richard Coords]

Michael,

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

For those who do not know, Sola Scriptura means "By Scripture Alone."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Michael, this is really no longer about whether there exists a New Testament prohibition against Military service, but about whether we trust in the Scritpures alone as the final authority on divine truth, or whether we appeal to human tradition for divine truth, as per the Catholic Church.

In addition to the fact that there is 1) no evidence that restricts military service to the Old Testament Law, 2) no evidence of a prohibition against military service in the New Testament, 3) no evidence of telling soldiers to quit their jobs as criteria to receive baptism (Luke 3:14), but 4) the matter did not even rise to the level of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Turn if you will, to Acts 15:19-20, which states: "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." Granted that this is an argument from silence, which is admittedly, often unreliable, but your claim of an apostolic Christian prohibition against military service is not only absent from Scripture (and the apostle's writings were "Scripture," as per 2Peter 3:15-16, but an even more damaging piece of evidence is the fact that your grand cause didn't even rise to the level of eating meat sacrifed to idols. Therefore, I move for a Summary Judgment in a motion to dismiss on the grounds of an utter lack of admissable evidence.

[Byroniac]

Amen what Richard Coords said. People tend to use their greatest source of authority as their first defense, and there is probably no exception here. Given Michael Westmoreland-White's views on Scripture, it is not surprising that his first reference is to Tradition which seems similar to a Catholic methodology. Still, he is intelligent and well read, and his use of history made for an interesting read. But when issues such as these are discussed, more fundamental issues are revealed, such as what sort of Biblical hermeneutic is used in the first place.

[cb scott]

Peter,

Thank you and well said. I understand what you mean by "but."

cb

[Richard Coords]

Byroniac,

That's a good point. By deferring to these traditions as primary source of evidence, it should therefore be interpreted as tacit admission to a lack of Sriptural backing.

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

Gentlemen,

With all due respect, I do not think Michael's reference to tradition in this debate is a problem or a reflection of a low view of scripture. He is establishing a tradition of hermeneutics, something very different from elevating tradition to the level of scripture. In his study of the early church's interpretation and application of scripture, he concludes that the earliest understanding of scripture and the Gospel is that they prohibit military service and violence of any sort.

Michael is not alone in this understanding. There is much to recommend a perspective that has roots in the earliest years of the Christian movement (nonviolence), especially compared to one that was constructed after Christianity became Christendom and took on the power and privilege of the Roman State (just war theory). Baptists to the same sort of thing with our views of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

I'll drop the issue, now, Peter. I'm sorry to litter up your wall (again) with a discussion only slightly related to your post.

Grace and peace,

Emily

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

Of course, my third to last sentence should say: "Baptists DO the same sort of thing..."

My apologies for the typo. :)