I'm appearing on a panel at my church on Saturday night to discuss some of the difficult questions of Christianity. I thought I'd get an early start on preparing for this by asking you to help me with the research.
You guys are smart, opinionated, and thoughtful. So pick one of the questions below -- any one you want -- and let loose in the comments.
------------------
1. Killing/Murder:
The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” How does that apply to police officers and/soldiers? Is it OK to kill for peace and/or protection? Are war and killing reconcilable? Updated addition: To what extent do the teachings of Jesus impact your answer?
2. Politics:
Should Christians support politicians who don’t hold their beliefs? What should a Christian do when politicians make policy that seems to move the country away from perceived Christian values? (Note: This is just a general question and not specific to any administration. We won't be allowed to mention particular names.)
3. Sinlessness:
Is sinlessness possible for a follower of Christ? Can we achieve sinlessness in this life (for a day or an extended period)?
------------------
Do you have an opinion on any of these? If so, I want to know.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hard Questions About Christianity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
1) It really should be (from what I've heard - I'm no hebrew scholar) should always be translated "Thou shalt not MURDER" not kill... so that's no issue at all. Not that I don't believe pacifists can have a point - but its up to us, and to our societies to decide whether to implement the death penalty, give police officers and soldiers the right to shoot, etc...
2) I think thats a personal decision. I don't think you can expect the Bible to tell you one way or the other...
3) No. We can sin less. We can avoid living in lifestyles of sin. But we still have a sin nature.
1. I agree that "Thou shalt not kill" is referring to murder. Clearly, God had some extreme warfare going on in the OT. And if you think about it, nowhere does God or Jesus condemn the Roman authorities for crucifying Christ. That was essentially the "death penalty" being enacted ... unjustly, albeit, but still.
2. I, personally, draw a fairly deep line in the sand on certain social/political issues as it relates to my faith. I cannot support a politician that supports abortion. I just can't do it. And if they choose to be part of a political organization that as a whole supports abortion, then I probably can't vote for them regardless of their personal stance. I believe we should honor, respect, and pray for our government, but we should do everything in our power to put men & women of faith & integrity into office. A Christian can support an "agenda", but I believe backing a non-believer or a believer acting untrue to the Christian faith is a dangerous act.
3. No. We are born into sin. We have a sin-nature. Our pursuit of Christ is not a pursuit of sinlessness. It is a pursuit of a razor sharp focus on the things of God so that our sin-nature takes a back seat to our walk with Christ. Our sin will never cease, but we can grow so close to God that we are preoccupied by his glory to the point of dramatically reducing our sin.
Great questions, I would love to hear how the night goes. For what it is worth here is my two cents.....
1. I just can't imagine Jesus ever killing anyone, even in self-defense. Martyrdom has often been the result of many faithful disciples, seeming proof that God is willing to let others die for the sake of the Gospel.
"It is impossible to show grace without making yourself vulnerable", I believe this question pushes this idea to its furthest limits.
** as a disclaimer I should say that I don't know that I would not choose to kill to save a loved one, but I pray that I would not.
2. If a politician's policy was 100% contrary to Christian values (however we define them) then of course not. The problem is that it is never so clear cut. At the end of the day we will always have to live with the reality that our vote will sometimes support policy we disagree with. I see it as very dangerous when a group of Christians align themselves with a particular political party because so much energy is wasted on defending ideologies rather than engaging specific issues.
3. “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.” Mark 10:27. Regardless of the likelihood, as soon as I stop believing that this is possible for myself and those around me I have already lost the battle and I do not understand my true identity in Christ.
1) I once asked a friend of mine, a Navy SEAL and devout Catholic, how he reconciled his job versus that commandment. His feeling was that as he was taking orders from a higher power - his chain of command up to the Command and Chief - that a higher purpose was being served that ultimately would save more lives.
2) I think this question may need revising. As a statesman does what he believes is best for his country, but a politician does what best gets him reelected. I'm more inclined to vote and support people who are actively working for the betterment of the nation, both today and in the future, and the rest of world, not a career crony pandering to the affluent minority that keeps him/her in office. Additionally, my Faith is a personal decision. Ideally, I'd like to think that any candidates faithful devotion (or lack thereof) was outside of my realm of consideration when recommending/voting him/her for a job. (I'd like to think I'm HR compliant that way).
3) I think Sinlessness is a concept like Happiness. It can only be measured after you're dead, but over the course of your life you can pursue it to the limits of your abilities, character and resources.
From a Catholic point of view:
1. You are allowed to kill to defend your life or the lives of those entrusted to you. And societies and countries have the right to defend themselves as well. Of course, killing is allowed only as a last resource, when everything else has failed (which would justify death penalty in certain cases) or when there's no other way to stop the aggressor.
2. For me, there are some issues in which the politician's view is a sine qua non condition for me to vote. Abortion is the main one. I'll never vote for someone who supports abortion. And I support the right of bishops or bishops' conferences to advise people not to vote for certain candidates based on their views on abortion, homosexual unions and other doctrine-related issues.
3. IIRC somewhere in the Bible we read that even the righteous people sin seven times a day. I'll stick with it.
1.The sixth of the ten commandments reads, “Thou shall not kill.” The New International Version translates it, “Thou shall not murder.” This is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since God required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, “You shall not murder.”
Reference: www.christianhomesite.com/cherryvale/.../10command6.html
So I do not think that commandment puts any restriction on death caused by military force or government enforcement of laws.
2. I personally believe that if a Christian is running, then I am going to look strongly at his/her record to ensure that it reflects their Christian belief. If it goes against a Christian foundation, then I would not vote for them. There are many candidate that aren't Christian, so then I look at what they do support and I compare that to what I believe and support as a Christian and I want to make sure it is compatible on fundamental issues. There are laws that politician can enact that allow sin, that is a fundamental issue that I would oppose and then I would oppose them as a candidate.
3. The only person who was sinless was Jesus. We will never be without sin until we die.
I didn't think these were very hard questions.
1. I do think they are reconcilable, but as far as the roles of police officers and soldier, there are numerous examples in the old testament of people in those roles participating in the act of killing. I've always heard "Thou shalt not murder," which is different than just killing, as it is senseless.
2. I personally don't want to help someone into a position of power if they don't share my core beliefs, because no matter how hard you try, your beliefs effect you actions, and if they don't, they are real beliefs. That being said, I wouldn't want someone in control over me if they are going to be operating with a different purpose in mind.
3. Sinlessness is possible for a follower of Christ, but not in this life. As people grow closer to God, sure, they should sin less and less, but nothing in this world is perfect anymore, at least not until Christ comes back, so in reality even though Christians are blameless, and even though we can exercise increasing control over out sinful nature, we will never be sinless in this life.
A comment on a blog is not nearly long enough to go into any depth, but I will take a stab at #2.
I am finding myself more or less apathetic about politics as I adjust my citizenship to that of Christ' kingdom. I am citizen of heaven first, and a citizen of American second. You have to wonder about those in high positions, because ultimately they desire power and feel they are the best candidate to wield it. This disturbs me greatly, because I realize that leadership is an important necessity for a functioning society. But to whom this leadership is given and at what costs is an entirely separate issue.
Given this position, I find myself more involved in local politics because I can see the result of my actions. If the local community is voting on whether to spend money on rebuilding a school or beautifying the local front, I can have a say in that without it conflicting my faith.
However, on the highly debated issues, such as abortion, I find the Church lacking in their responsibility. If the Church (at least in America) would put as much passion into meeting the needs of pregnant teens, orphans, and widows as they do in their political stance, we might actually see some change in society that does not require legislation.
1. This question has already been answered sufficiently...plus I don't like it.
2. In the OT, God used foreign governments to "correct" the nation of Israel for their sin all of the time (Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. would come beat up on the Jews). Maybe if Christians are at odds with particular politicians in charge, it's God "correcting" them for sin.
3. "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." 1 John 3:6. That's referring to intentioal sin. We're so covered in sin that sometimes we don't even know we're doing it.
For and in-depth look at #2, I would recommend a recent sermon by Greg Boyd of Woodland Hills Church, called "Handing Jesus over to Cesar". It's on iTunes podcasts, check it out.
1. As posted by others, the interpretation should be murder and not kill. If it was kill, the Bible would stand in direct conflict with itself when it called for death as a form of punishment.
2. I would say I support Christian candidates, but there are many Christians who do not oppose abortion or homosexuality. I don’t think the Christian label can really be used any more to represent a standard belief or moral authority.
Paul said in Romans 13 that we must submit ourselves to the governing authorities, because there authority is what God established. I don’t have to agree with the politicians beliefs, but I have to submit to the authority of the government. Of course, that is based on the idea that the will of the government will not cause me to violate the will of God.
You can support the person without supporting their beliefs. With our current government structure, I feel like we have an obligation to speak out against actions by the government that conflict with our own beliefs. But that being said, all Christians can not agree on abortion and homosexuality, so we are in direct conflict with yourself.
3. When you are saved, you become a new creation. You are baptized into the death of Jesus and the resurrection. The old nature (sinner) is dead and a new creation (saint) is born.
Will we ever not sin? Yes as we are no longer sinners.
Based on the homogeneity of the responses, I'd say that these aren't the hard questions about christianity.
Matt:
Well said. Personally, I'm surprised so few answers to #1 have mentioned Jesus (other than Harlee, who makes a thought-provoking point).
It's clear the Old Testament has no problem with killing (justified or unjustified), but where do the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jesus fit into self-defense? "Do not resist an evil person." Do we take those literally or not?
Or was Jesus contradicting himself in Luke 22:36-38 when he advocated that his disciples carry a sword with them?
These makes this a much more difficult question than simply parsing the Hebrew of the 10 Commandments.
Number 2 is a bit easier for me. But #1, from a biblical standpoint, is not so cut-and dried. Same goes for #3, but that's a whole 'nother comment.
1) It seems to me that Jesus took a STRICTER view of "Thou shalt not kill", not a more lenient one: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
2) You must vote your beliefs. If no one represents your beliefs, you’re either going to have to go with the closet available, or run for office yourself.
3) We are sinful creatures, and always will be. If I went an entire day on my knees in prayer, so that I could guarantee that I wouldn’t sin; then I would sin just as soon as I stood up, because I would be so proud of myself. Just sayin'
(1) I think the real question here is whether you believe that the state and those acting on its behalf and under its authority are bound by the same directions that Jesus gave to his individual followers.
1) As a Jewish person, I have no problem with what Yeshua (Jesus) said and what this commandment states. As many people have posted previously, this commandment refers to murder, not violence as a whole. And since Yeshua, was the living Torah he would have never taught anything contrary to the Torah. In fact the concept of “turn the other cheek” was not a radical new teaching at the time of Yeshua (Jesus). The rabbis of Yeshua’s time taught that if a person was slapped in the face he should forgive that person even if he did not ask for forgiveness (Tosefta Baba Kanima 9:29). Also, the Talmud commends the person who accepts insult without retaliation and accepts it with cheer (Yoma 23a). One can find parallels to almost all of Yeshua’s statements in ancient Rabbinic literature, particularly of Hillel.
I think you can take Jesus' teaching literally, but you have to make sure it is in the correct literal context.
We look at turn the other cheek from our view point to say do not defend ourselves when assaulted. When Jesus was talking to the people, He would have been talking to them about things that were relevant to them. Jesus starts off talking about the law. The context pertains to the law and not self defense. Jewish law allowed a person to sue someone who struck them with the back of the hand, because it was an insult. Jesus is saying, do not sure the person. Instead, turn the other cheek and rise up instead of being humiliated
Jesus, Himself, showed acts of anger. Twice He overturned the money changers in the temple area and chased them away. He was not a pacifist. He did not stop the Disciples from carrying weapons and did not admonish the disciple for cutting the ear of the bond servant when they came to take Him into custody.
Jesus said if a kingdom was separated it would fall. If the Word appears to contradict itself, you have to look at it a little harder and see what was really intended. Usually it is a break down in the language and customs of the times. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus wasn't white.
1. Well, I'm kind of a pacifist. I take Shane Claiborne's side who said that if Jesus says love your neighbors, he means don't kill them. Killing for peace seems a little backward. Killing for protection ... is a tricky issue.
I believe that God is unchanging, but I still think that God worked differently in the OT than he does post-crucifixion. God started off small with the Israelites, then extended His promise to everyone. (I know I'm simplifying this, but to get into theology right now would take too long.) That's how I "justify" the war in the OT. I don't think it was God's perfect plan, necessarily, but it happened.
2. I think Christians should stay out of politics. Jesus didn't get mixed in, neither should we.
3. Ah, complete sanctification - the belief that men can be free of willful (intentional) sins. This is where I disagree with my Wesleyan school. I think that to say that we are sinless for an extended period of time - to reach "sanctification" - is making Grace futile.
Addition to my answer to #1 with the Jesus aspect taken into consideration.
1. With all of the teachings of Jesus he focused on the "heart" of man and the actual motive for a person's thoughts and behaviors, so he was trying to get to the deeper sin that many religious people were covering up with their good deeds.
So just looking at causing someone's death due to your job (ie. Police Officer, Military), I believe Jesus' teaching is still consistent with the overarching commandments in the old Testament. Jesus said himself that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17-19
I think that if you want to take it in to a really gray area or more complex, then each individual who is a Christ-follower needs to be resolute in their heart about life and death decision that may have to make. My husband and I discussed what we would do if we ever encountered an intruder in our home. We have a shotgun and we discuss what we would do. We believe that God calls us to provide and protect our family and the helpless (children, babies, widows, elderly, etc.) but also to show Christ to the world and love others. So our decision was that we would warn the intruder that we have a shotgun and we will use it if they proceed. If they do, then we would use it in a way to injury but hopefully not kill a person. And we discussed talking with the intruder until the cops came and if they were hurt and bleeding to render aid so that they do not die and share Jesus with them. I don't know how effective this would be, but then again I don't know how effective being a pacificist in our homes would communicate Christ to a person as well. I don't think allowing someone to harm our children or family member to show Christ is really what Jesus was talking about. That would mean that I making that decision to allow us to be victimize for not just me but also for my 11 yr old daughter, my 9 yr old son and my infant son.
Paul was routinely beaten and imprisoned for Christ's Kingdom but he never made that decision for someone else.
Although this is a tougher questions, I think the real application is are we "murdering" others with our thoughts and words. I think this is the more common occurrence for a Christ-follower everyday. The "thou shall not murder" question is like the non-Christian that throws up the unreached tribe in the remote jungle that doesn't know Christ objection. Come-on is this really what this person's issue with Christ is, or is that a smoke screen so they don't have to deal with their real issues.
Post a Comment