Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

Ok, I realize this has gotten very off-topic for the list, so I'll make this
my last.... Just to fill in where I'm coming from on all this, I find a
"just peacemaking" perspective as advocated by Glen Stassen to be helpful in
sorting out how we individually and collectively live out a Christian
ethic. Just peacemaking seeks to fill a gap between classical "just war"
and anabaptist-pacifist theories. For more, see here:
http://www.fuller.edu/sot/faculty/stassen/cp_content/homepage/homepage.htm

On Dec 27, 2007 11:23 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

> 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. Thus, 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<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://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>
> !
>

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 23:50:14 2007