Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

I was interested in this question when?I was studying the Sermon on the Mount several years ago, since this is where Jesus talks about turning the other cheek.? Luther's position was that there is a difference between a man and his office.? As individual men, we have a duty to forgive.? In the office of father or mother, we have a duty to protect our family, even if it means killing an intruder.? So the requirement to turn the other cheek, according to Luther, was directed at us as individuals in our relationships and does not negate the governmental role we may sometimes play where we cannot turn the other cheek without failing our role.? Similarly, if a person is a police officer or member of the military, then in that office he may be called to use deadly force rather than turning the other cheek.?

By way of contrast, the Anabaptists rejected this distinction and claimed that no Christian could serve?as a law enforcement officer or member of the military because that job would require them to fail to turn the other cheek sometimes.

The more recent Christian philosopher Rheinhold Neibuhr clarified?this distinction between a person as an individual versus in a governmental role.? What he stated was that the correct moral role for an individual is to practice mercy, whereas the the correct moral role for government is to ensure justice.? It is unnatural when private individuals execute justice insted of mercy (vigilanteism), just as it is unnatural for the government to?become a charity organization?(since charity by definition can't be?demanded by force of arms), thus taking the role of charity away from the individuals when it should be focused instead on ensuring justice.? One could say that a great innovation of the human species is that the need for doing violence has been?taken away from the individual and that is what the institution of government is all about -- communalizing the role of violent enforcement of justice so that it is not abused and so that the individual is freed from this role.? Thu
 s, anything that is not proper to?enforce by violence when necessary should not be a role of government, but of the individual (e.g., doing charity).?

Since the institution of government can't be everywhere at all times, fathers and mothers still have a governmental role in protecting their children, and there are other governmental roles we may play that may involve enforcing justice.

I found this to be a very helpful way to look at this issue.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'David Opderbeck' <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; drsyme@cablespeed.com
Cc: 'Janice Matchett' <janmatch@earthlink.net>; 'asA' <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 5:27 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

David,

?

The example of an intruder with intent to do violence to your family is a red herring. As a lawyer, you know that clause refers to a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

?

To use a "turn the other cheek" argument to debunk the right to keep and bear arms, you have to establish that Jesus no longer intended national governments, national defenses and the concept of righteous governments, which I don't think you rationally can do.

?

Thanks

?

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:46 PM
To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
Cc: Janice Matchett; asA
Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

Well now I think your paraphrase is inaccurate Jack.? Sure, if the intruder is in the act of murdering the family and there's no other alternative, violence against the intruder might be justified.? And yes, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback, and the exigency of any situation has to be part of an ethical determination.? But I think my original point stands -- it simply is not the case that this principle offers moral support to?a private right to bear arms.? The case in which "the most effective means available" to prevent violence against one's family requires the private use of weapons is exceedingly rare.

On Dec 27, 2007 3:39 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

Ok thanks for the reference.? But again your paraphrase was inacurrate.? It was Geisler, not Moreland.? And you changed the quote: "Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most effective means available to him?
fails them morally."

I think Geislers point is simply to say that if you watch someone murder your family, and you choose to do nothing about it (assuming there is something that you could do about it,) is immoral.

On Thu Dec 27 14:11 , Janice Matchett sent:

At 01:44 PM 12/27/2007, drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:

Interestingly enough Janice was paraphrasing not JP Moreland but Ron Rhodes who misquoted Moreland:? "Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."?? He gives no reference.? http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html? ~ Jack

@ Not so.

I just did a search and found the page from where I originally saw the quote - it was on the "Karate for Christ" page :)? I just forgot that Geisler was involved with writing that book, also: http://www.karateforchrist.ca/EssEades.pdf

Geisler wrote:

"To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Debate-Moral-Issues/dp/027593702X

~ Janice

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 27 23:25:14 2007