At the end of part 1 of the video presented in post #1, the speaker has this to say -
“Same people who say ‘Christians can’t use violence’ also demand police stop shooters, military stops genocides, courts imprison rapists. All require violence.”
That, I would say, is generally true. I personally have no objection with the statement.
”Here’s what they’re actually saying. I support violence. I just want someone else to do it for me.”
That aligns with my personal position.
“They’re outsourcing their violence to the state.”
Exactly. Which is what is called for in the New Testament.
”When you call 911, you’re requesting armed men to use force on your behalf.“
They may not have to use force - they shouldn’t if they don’t have to, they should if they have to - but that’s a reasonably fair statement.
”That’s not pacifism.”
I’m a pacifist. Pacifism is much broader than he is allowing, which I’ve documented in other threads.
“That’s delegation.”
I agree. Who is responsible for that? God is. It is the role which he has delegated to the state.
”And if you don’t believe the state should use force, then you’re contradicting Romans 13, which explicitly says rulers bear the sword as God’s servants.”
My only issue with this statement is his use of the word “should”. I would replace it with the phrase “is authorized by God to”. There are times when the state should and times when the state shouldn’t use force. That decision is in the hands of the rulers of the state(s). With that small caveat, I agree with the speaker.
”So which is it? Either you support righteous violence, you just want clean hands, …”
I support righteous violence - which is defined by Paul as the role of the state. As for wanting clean hands, yes, of course. Every follower of Jesus should want clean hands.
”… or you’re disobeying scripture.”
I agree.
“You want the results of righteous force, …”
Of course.
”… while condemning the men capable of it.”
The man capable of it in the Roman Empire when Jesus spoke through Paul was Nero. Does the speaker condemn Nero? Does Paul condemn Nero? Does Nero condemn himself?
”You want safety without sheepdogs, protection without protectors.”
Certainly not. I want safety with sheepdogs, protection with protectors. Nero (and rulers of other nations) are tasked by God in the New Testament to provide it for his / their respective citizens. That task hasn’t changed with the passage of nearly 2,000 years. It‘s just as true today as it was in the first century.
“That’s not Christianity. That’s parasitism.”
With his misstatement about what I want having been addressed, his concluding statement has no teeth.
P.S.
Does the speaker acknowledge the shift which took place in the thinking of church leaders in the 4th century? If he’s done his homework (i.e., if he has read the Ante Nicene Church Fathers), he will. Then it becomes a simple matter of the church being either right or wrong with its new thinking in a changed environment. Given what the speaker is advocating in his video, that’s where he and I would part ways.
It’s the compromise, the mixing of the roles of church and state, that has caused the problem.
kingdomharbor.com
