CultureWatch Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day…

What does it mean to be pro-life? There is some confusion as to what the term implies. If a person is opposed to abortion, must that same person also be opposed to war, or the death penalty?

Indeed, religious conservatives tend as a whole to be anti-abortion, but also pro-death penalty and pro-just-war theory. Some on the religious left argue that to be consistently pro-life, you have to oppose all these things.

But there are other mixes: many of the secular left who are pro-abortion are also anti-war. And they are happy to denounce pro-lifers for what they perceive as inconsistencies on their part. A case in point is an article that appeared in the Canberra Times on August 21, 2006, later reprinted in onlinopinion.com (as “Embryos versus soldiers,” 8 September).

Ben McNeil, a lecturer in environmental issues at the University of New South Wales, takes the pro-life camp to task for opposing abortion but not opposing the war in Iraq. In his blurb it says he has “expertise in the global carbon cycle”. He may have that, but he does not seem to have expertise in moral reasoning or clear thinking.

His argument is brief and slight: “Particular politicians always seem to bring the sanctity of life issue to the forefront of the stem-cell debate. But if they supported the moral argument for the war then they must also support the moral argument for stem cell research.”

He continues: “To avert the reign of terror and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, those in favour of the war in Iraq argued that the human sacrifice of soldiers was a worthy and necessary initial cost to save many more lives in the future. Surely the same sacrifice principle is central to the debate over stem cell research?”

And he notes that some religious groups are, in his view, more consistent here than politicians like Tony Abbott: “The Anglican and Catholic Churches, however, have been more consistent in their views, opposing both the war and stem cell research. This gives them a respected stance in the debate.”

What are we to make of this argument and others like it? Are the critics right? Does one have to oppose all killing to be truly pro-life and not be hypocritical?

The answer to these questions depends in part on how we define our terms. For example, what do we mean by killing? Of course any court of law worth its salt makes fundamental distinctions here. Murder is not the same as accidental death. Manslaughter is not the same as self-defence. Courts and laws recognize that not all killing is the same, and that not all killing is wrong, or of equal moral censure.

And many of the world’s great religions also make such differentiations, such as Judaism and Christianity. Indeed, go back to the sixth command. It literally says, “you shall not commit murder”. It does not proscribe killing. This is for the simple reason that God authorizes killing on various occasions, including the death penalty, the judgment of Canaan, and self defence.

So religious critics who argue that Christians must oppose all killing are simply wrong here. The Bible does not enjoin that, nor should we.

And just war theory, as it has developed over millennia, argues that defensive wars and wars to stop aggression can be morally justified. Pre-emptive strikes are a more difficult case, and people can argue over the merits of whether intervention in Iraq was justifiable. But Christian tradition has long recongised the right to kill under certain circumstances. And that is usually done by the state, not the individual. Thus governments have a right to implement the death penalty, to raise up armies, and to arm police forces. And individuals may have a right to self defence in certain circumstances.

Thus McNeil makes some conceptual errors here, and muddies the waters when more clarity and nuance was required. But there is another major error that needs to be addressed here. McNeil argues that if some soldiers can be sacrificed to save many people, why not sacrifice some embryos to possibly save many people? Several things can be said about this.

First, he may be unwittingly conceding some ground here to the pro-life camp. If the early embryo is just a clump of cells and not a person, then there is no sacrifice being made. So his analogy falls down completely. There is only sacrifice if the embryo is indeed a person, a very young member of the human race. Does McNeil believe this? If not, he needs to come up with a new argument.

Second, he makes a monumental error of judgment here by seeking to equate the two. Australia does not have conscription (at least not now). Thus every soldier in the army (and by extension, in Iraq) is there by free choice. Individuals volunteered to join the army, knowing that this would mean being willing to sacrifice one’s life for one’s country. It is all voluntary, all volitional. There is nothing of the sort happening with the hapless embryo. He or she is being destroyed without permission or consent. This runs against the basic ethical code of medical research: patient consent is always crucial, and obviously an embryo cannot give consent.

Thus the analogy is without substance, and McNeil’s whole argument comes down like a house of cards. As such, he will have to try much harder if he wants to add anything of substance to this important debate.

——————————————————————————–

Comments 1.. Benjamin Soderlund 12.9.06 / 11am That is a well put and logical argument Bill.

Benjamin Soderlund

2.. Stan Fishley 13.9.06 / 9pm Bill, I agree with Benjamin. He describes the argument as well put and logical. I would add that I will be using it as an example to show what proper analysis is. Stan Fishley, Wantirna

3.. Jim Reiher Victoria 28.2.07 / 8am Just wondering where in the Christian scriptures it says we can kill in self-defence? Did not Jesus say “if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other also”? And to keep relying on Old Convenant texts when Jesus fulfilled the Old and changed so much, is dangerous exegesis. In the very passage where he said he fulfilled the Old, (Matt 5) he gives 6 specific examples of how he changes things in that fulfilment, (the rest of chapter 5) and one of those very examples is now to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. I am not convinced Bill – if we really believe in the sanctity of life (because all humanity is made in the image of God) then there is a logical consistency that we would be opposed to killing (not just murdering)

but killing as well – from the embryo to the Sadams. God is still on his throne and he can do as he pleases. But us imperfect humans? And to say “I am killing because God wants me to” is the oldest excuse in the book to justify all kinds of evil. I agree that some people are hypocritical in their support for abortion and opposition to capital punishment, but likewise people are (I am still convinced) hypocrites in their support for capital punishment and opposition of abortion. Jesus in John 8:1-11 demonstrated opposition to the implementation of capital punishment that was demanded by Moses very law in our Old Testament. He got the woman off the punishment. Jesus changes so much! We live as followers of Jesus, not as followers of the Old Covenant. Jim Reiher, Victoria

4.. Bill Muehlenberg 28.2.07 / 9am Thanks Jim

No I am not a hypocrite. I have written on these topics elsewhere. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. What are seriously suggesting Jim? Do we Christians just follow 27 books of the Bible (NT), and throw out the other 39 (OT)? Or do we just follow Matther 5-7?

As to God taking care of us: He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15) Those who trust God work for a living, as they are instructed in 1 Timothy 5:8. For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was “trusting God” would actually be to defy God.

So here you are talking like a Calvinist (God is in control and he can protect us if He wants, so we should do nothing about it). But elsewhere you talk like an Arminian (eg., social justice: it is up to us, not just God alone, to work to make this world a more just and humane place). So which is it?

Concerning self-defence, yes the Bible clearly allows it. Consider especially Exodus 22:2,3 for starters.

Of course resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance, which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). That seems to be the point of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you refer to. He is warning against taking personal vengeance. He is not repudiating any OT command (he does not say “It is written”, but “You have heard it said”. There is no OT command to hate your enemies.) And many scholars feel that “if anyone strikes you” is an idiom for personal insults, rather than a physical attack.

And it is Jesus who said that his disciples should arm themselves (buy a sword – Luke 22:36). This is not nullified by Matthew 26:52-54. Jesus had a mission to perform, and Peter was not to prevent it. And Jesus did not tell him to throw his sword away, but simply to put it back at his side.

Jesus never condemns any soldier for being a “killing machine” even though he had a chance to do so, as when he told them what they must do to inherit eternal life (eg, Luke 3:14). He even tells one soldier he has great faith (Luke 7:1-10).

And the NT is full of military imagery. If killing were absolutely wrong for the believer, much better images could have been selected. The truth is, the Bible does not teach that killing is never allowed.

Thus if you want to argue that all killing is wrong, you may, but then you can no longer claim to be following the Bible as your guide for ethical behaviour. Both Testaments sanction killing (not murder) so I will follow Scripture here thanks.

And John 8 may not so readily be used to say that capital punishment should be abolished. If anything, Jesus is affirming the strict requirements of OT justice here (according to Deut. 22:22-24 the man was also to be included in the punishment).

And if Matt 5 is your favourite text in this regard, then you should no so readily dismiss Matt 5:17.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

5.. Jim Reiher Victoria 28.2.07 / 10am Thanks for your thoughts Bill. I am not pursuaded that you have shown that the New Testament allows us to kill. I dont disagree that police forces are necessary in any society (for the sake of keeping society safe and functioning). In fact, in Jesus’ day, the Roman presence in much of the world, was really a police force role. On the edges of the empire there were wars being fought, but most soldiers in the Roman army, stationed in subdued territories, were acting as police forces. When John the Baptist (not Jesus, as you claim) spoke to soldiers about what they must do, we can see into that a little. On a broader issue: your use of some scriptures is a bit worrying to be honest. To use Luke 22:36 to justify Christains using violence in self-defence is particularly disturbing. The context tells us why Jesus told Peter to bring a sword along to the garden: the very next verse says “For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And he was numbered with transgressors’.” Jesus knew that he was to be considered a sinner, a transgressor. He was fulfilling a prophecy and had to “look like” he was hanging around with sinners – sinners carry swords, in this particular passage. Not Godly followers of the Lord of Lords. So when Peter goes to use it at the garden, in self-defence, Jesus rebukes him. And you are right: Jesus did not say “throw it away”. He said “Put it away.” But again Bill, you leave out a bit. Jesus said: “For all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” That is rather telling, isn’t it? You highlight that Jesus had a mission to fulfil and had to die on the cross and so he did. But that is not said in the garden to Peter. What is said, is “he who takes up the sword will die by it.” So you are not addressing what is actually said, here. And reinterpreting it to fit your preferred view (that Christians can carry weapons and use them in self-defence). And finally, your approach to John 8:1-11 is very disturbing. Are you really suggesting that Jesus would have agreed to have both the man and woman stoned to death, if the man had been brought to him as well? Have I read you right here? That is not the flow of the story or the nature of Jesus in the gospels. You are changing Jesus to be just like people who want capital punishment Bill. I thought we were meant to try to change ourselves to be more like Jesus. Jim Reiher, Victoria

6.. Bill Muehlenberg 28.2.07 / 3pm Thanks Jim

But you err in equating violence with force. We can all legitimately use force, while violence is to be eschewed. You acknowledge that police can use force. But can’t you as well? If a rapist enters your home and attacks your wife, will you stand by and do nothing, arguing that the police can use force, but not you? So will you then be complicit in the evil action of rape by refusing to resist it? Please explain your understanding here.

I did not proof text Luke 22, I simply meant that it was a passage that needed to be dealt with in this discussion.

And while probably no one has a complete grasp on how we are to understand all of Matt. 5-7, my main point was that contrary to the usual custom of dragging someone off to court because of a personal insult, Jesus was here pleading for non-retaliation: that is, to not go through with the law court, but rather take the insult, which was a big ask in such a strong honour/shame culture as first century Palestine.

The Sermon on the Mount is part of the Christian ethic, but not all of it. It must be understood in the context of all of the NT, indeed, all of Scripture.

As to John 8, of course it is not part of the original gospel of John, but a later addition. So if you seek to use it as a chief pillar against capital punishment, you will be on wobbly ground. But having said that, the point is Jesus nowhere says the law is wrong. He nowhere implies taking up stones is wrong. And he may well be following the procedure of Mosaic law that says a case can be dismissed when witnesses lack integrity. Thus he in effect gives permission for the stoning to begin, provided the right conditions have been met (which were not). He is in fact upholding the law here, not denying it.

He is making a point about judgementalism and taking the law into one’s own hands. I did not say he was arguing that both should be stoned. But I do not see a denial of the divinely-appointed death penalty being made here.

Plus there are related questions. To what extent could Jews then even carry out the death penalty under Roman ruler-ship? Were the accusers also witnesses of the crime? (Deut. 17:7) And there is no explicit mention of Jesus forgiving the woman here, only to not go on with this sinful activity

Lastly, a little thought exercise. In the light of your rejection of any sort of self-defence, tell me which of these four scenarios is wrong or sinful? 1. A tree is falling down and you must use force to defend yourself from being hurt by it. Is that OK? 2. A man has temporarily gone insane and is whipping around a baseball bat, hurting you and others. Can you use force to protect yourself, defend others, and disarm the madman, so you and others are no longer hurt? 3. An assailant attacks you with a baseball bat. Can you defend yourself and seek to disarm or immobilize your attacker? Or must you just take the beating, and possible death? 4. A terrorist bomber is about to detonate his explosives in a crowded school. Can you legitimately seek to stop him in this, by use of force, and protect yourself and the children from the massacre?

Since you are the one who seems to be absolutizing the wrongness of self-defense, I would appreciate which of these, if any, you think are acceptable from a Christian standpoint.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

7.. Jim Reiher Victoria 1.3.07 / 11pm Thanks for taking the time to respond again Bill. I don’t think you have really addressed the unusual use of various NT scriptures that your earlier comments made. I still see no mandate in the New Testament to take up weapons as disciples of Jesus, to use in self defense. The verses you used were used wrongly, out of context, and ignoring clear surrounding qualifying material.

And you seem determined to push me into an extreme position, so that it is easier to ignore my comments. I have told you before Bill, that I am not a 100% pacifist, but I think Jesus was, and I am not one because I am still not like Jesus perfectly. I wont pretend that my less than Christ-like life is really the Christ-like way to live.

You and I both know that throughout church history many Christians have been 100% pacifists. And some people have watched their families be killed rather than deny Jesus, and rather than use violence to prevent it. Are you saying that they were deluded or immoral? The Anabaptists, or the Amish or the Mennonites or many others? Should the apostle Paul have used violence to prevent himself being arrested? Or should the other Christians used violence to prevent it, or to rescue him? What of the women arrested before Saul became Paul? Should the church have risen up and fought to have them rescued?

You ask me extreme and emotive questions instead of addressing the Scriptures and Jesus in particular. To answer one of your scenarios: I am pretty sure that I would jump in and probably kill an intruder who wanted to hurt or kill my family members. But I don’t know if that is the highest way to live as a Christ follower. Let me ask you an extreme and emotive scenario: If you are held down by some strong men, and they threaten to rape and kill your wife unless you deny Jesus verbally and clearly – what would you do? Now this is not a question of self defense. You are pinned down and cant fight. This is a question of whether or not you can deny Christ. I don’t think you would want to deny Jesus – in theory – am I right? But you just might, in practice, and then repent of it later. Maybe. I suspect I would be very tempted to do just that. But again, some people in history have not denied Jesus and they and their loved ones have suffered greatly for it. Well, extending that idea: some people have also found that to use violence against another human being (made in the image of God) is just not an option no matter what the consequences. It is as bad to them as denying Jesus is to us. It is as bad to them because it is effectively denying Jesus, to deny imitating him. To not love their enemies. To not turn the other cheek. It is the same as saying “I deny Christ and his way.”

Now as I said, Bill, I am not a 100% pacifist. I don’t think it is really debating a question to try to pigeon hole me with extreme scenarios. Nor is it good debate technique, to try to justify using violence by painting extreme and emotional pictures. Rather than emotional scenarios, lets keep grappling with scripture.

And I don’t think I have ever said that “force” cant ever be used. I do see a difference between the two (force and violence) though of course it is grey and they overlap. (Jesus used force the day he cleansed the temple). It is not a black and white debate and I have not meant to give anyone the impression that I think it is. But in reading Jesus in the gospels, he is much more the pacifist than the man of violence. He is much more the one calling on us to imitate him, than to take up swords and be like those in the world. He let his enemies hurt him. He did not retaliate. He calls on us to be like him.

Let me take up the discussion about John 8. Jesus would not have wanted the man and the woman both stoned. The actual content of the passage does not follow the argument you try to develop. Jesus no where says “I would just like to affirm that we must fully obey the law in all ways and an injustice is happening here today because only the woman is here. So let her go.” No. He says “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is a very overarching statement. It is burying the ability of people to actually implement capital punishment because no one can claim to be without sin. This is profound. And has huge implications that you are not acknowledging, on the whole capital punishment debate.

And to say “the passage was not in the original text” is not the whole story either. To be more accurate, it is not in some of the early manuscripts, but is in others. What does that mean? Did it not happen and it is a fabricated story so we can ignore it? No. What it means (according to most commentators) is that maybe John Zebedee did not write it, but one of the early disciples copying Johns gospel put it in, so that we would not lose that story over time. Virtually everyone agrees that it probably did happen (it sounds exactly like the Jesus we see in all the other stories of the gospels – brilliant answer, grace flowing towards sinners, etc). So the truthfulness of the story is not in question, just who authored it. And God in his sovereignty oversaw the writing of the whole gospel so that it is what he wants us to read and apply. Just as an editor added the last chapter of Deuteronomy and it is not Moses writing, but it is still God inspired scripture, so too John 8 is God ordained and inspired, despite who wrote it.

I am not sure we are getting very far in this discussion Bill. You probably think I am not hearing you, and I am feeling like you are not hearing me. But hopefully anyone reading our comments will sift all that we are both saying, and prayerfully reflect on the issues. (Me and you too hey!)

God bless mate. Jim Reiher, Victoria

8.. Bill Muehlenberg 2.3.07 / 9am Thanks Jim

But I certainly did not intend my questions to be offensive in any way, so apologies are offered if offence was taken, as none was intended. I thought they were perfectly legitimate questions, in order to gauge where you were coming from. I certainly did not consider them to be “extreme and emotive,” nor was I trying to “pigeon-hole” you nor push you in a corner. Instead, the questions reflect scenarios that happen in the real world quite often, and I was just using them in a genuine and honest attempt to see what you really believe on this issue.

As to your counter scenario, in my view you are simply mixing chalk and cheese. In your hypothetical, both options are horrible. No one would wish to be in that situation. Thus in your scenario we have a definite case of choosing the lesser of two evils.

But my examples are radically different. In my four scenarios I do not see any great moral or Scriptural dilemmas. In my understanding of Scripture, all four scenarios are no-brainers. Not only would I choose to take action in all four cases, I would have no qualm of conscience and no regrets in any. There would be nothing for me to repent of in any of those scenarios. I would feel completely justified in taking defensive action, and see no ethical problem in doing so. Thus, in my view, your example is an apple to my oranges; it is a category mistake.

You see, I do not have a problem with self defense, and I do not see God having a problem with it, nor Scripture. It is obviously problematic for you, however, thus your strong reaction to my questions.

And I have been grappling with Scripture all along, its just that you don’t like the way I interpret Scripture. We appear to use differing hermeneutical frameworks in which we come to this debate. You seem to see much more discontinuity between the OT and the NT, and much more discontinuity between the words of Jesus and the other NT writers than I do, that’s all.

And I am glad that you have admitted that on occasion force can be used and self-defence is not always evil. That is all I was really trying to establish. I do not mind that you hold different views than I do, and it was not my intention to arouse your emotions, nor to make you be defensive in your position.

Of course you have now upped the ante with what many would consider a pretty radical new understanding of the doctrine of inspiration. If John 8 is in fact not found in the best and earliest manuscripts, that raises the question of whether it was in fact part of God’s inerrant and inspired word, the original text. If you are now claiming that any text added later is equally inspired, then we have a whole new debate on our hands, and a worrying one at that.

The issue is not that Jesus might have said it (it is likely that he did), the issue is what God intended to be part of Holy Scripture. It has nothing to do with authorship or redaction, but what the final and closed word of God should be. That is the real issue. I hope you are not suggesting that sayings attributed to Jesus elsewhere, say, in the Gospel of Thomas, are equally inspired?

My original point was simply (and I restate it and rephrase it here), if this pericope is not in fact established by the manuscript evidence, then if it were one of your main planks in your argument against capital punishment, you would be on less secure ground than if you appealed to other texts.

As to your charge of how poorly I am handling the biblical text, I will leave that for others to decide.

Whether we are in fact hearing each other or not is a moot point, but as you rightly note, if nothing else, readers might find some value in the discussion, so I for one do not see it as a waste of time.

Blessings,

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

9.. Jim Reiher Victoria 3.3.07 / 5pm Thanks Bill. There are so many things that we could talk about.

I dont agree with your apparent view on inspiration. You did not address my comments on Deuteronomy, so let me expand them here. If Moses did not write the last chapter of Deuteronomy, but it was added later, then is it also to be tossed out of the Bible as you seem to want to do with John 8:1-11? Or are you accepting that Moses did not write the whole book of Deuteronomy and the unknown author was the inspired one? If you accept Moses’ authorship but still accept the last chapter of Deuteronomy, you are not being consistent in your desire to reject John 8. An editor besides the original author, can also be used of God to preserve His words for us.

And to be fair: only some of the early manuscripts don’t have John 8:1-11. Other early ones have it. There is a possibility that someone copying the gospel early in the manuscript tree, either accidentally left it out, or left it out on purpose (not liking the implications of Jesus’ radical rejection of stated words from Moses’ law). And then that copy without the story, got copied, while at the same time earlier copies got copied too. So two versions of John circulated and we really don’t know for sure if it was in the original or not.

In other words, either it was in the original, and got dropped and then different manuscripts circulated, or it was not in the original and in was added by an early copyist.

My point is that either way, the story is still with us and it is in the New Testaments that we buy and read. They all have it there and some put the footnote: “not in some original manuscripts.”

But God is bigger than all that and I would have thought you would have believed that the whole Bible is the word of God. I would have thought that you would have taught that God sovereignly preserved the documents in the form they have reached us, to get us what he wants us to have and use. If you can start dropping the bits that don’t fit your preferred views, you are the one opening up a hornets nest for finding excuses to eliminate parts of scripture that don’t sit well with anyone. You would have to drop out lots of phrases and words, and sentences from all over the NT to be consistent to this new rule: if any deemed “reliable” ancient manuscripts don’t have it, drop it out! We do not do that to dozens of verses and words and phrases Bill, that are also under the same question mark, in those same ancient manuscripts, and I think you know that. And if you have devised a clever hermeneutic rule to ignore parts of scripture, maybe the next person will think up an equally clever rule to ignore other parts of the New Testament. Why cant they? Forget God’s providence in providing us with it all. We can be really clever and work out ways to ignore parts.

So better than tread that path, lets accept all the Bible as we have it and try to understand it in all it says. And so we are still left with the fact that Jesus said “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”. He did not say: “I am letting you go today, because the full details of judicial process have not been implemented properly.”

The best you can really do, in such cases, is simply admit that some ancient manuscripts don’t have this word, or phrase or sentence, or paragraph (or almost a whole chapter, like Mark 16) – and then ask: but since God preserved it for us, how do we understand it?

I won’t tackle every thing that comes to mind but there is one other thing I have seen you do on a number of occasions that I would like to mention. You use the line: “you are comparing apples to oranges” to get around really grappling with some questions. You dodge whole questions with this strategy of finding some big or small difference between your scenario and another scenario, and then feel that no more needs to be said. You unpack a perceived difference, rather than grapple with the issue, and your perceived differences give you some kind of rationale to then drop the topic.

The fact is much more needs to be said and explored. So what if there are two horrible scenarios in the picture I painted. (You did not say, by the way, which one you would do). But there are from a pacifists point of view, two horrible scenarios with your earlier scenario as well (remember: you asked me what I would do if someone came into my home to rape my wife). Two evil scenarios: I let it happen, or I fight and perhaps kill the intruder. You might want to say that you have not painted two terrible scenarios, but from a non-violence point of view, you have done exactly that.

Your later picture of a tree falling in the forest of course is no big issue. But your kill a terrorist to stop them setting off a bomb picture presents difficult options for some.

You did not answer my question if you think that the pacifists of Christian history were stupid or immoral for letting their families be killed rather than deny either their faith or the tenants of their faith. Or if the early Christians in the book of Acts were mistaken for not fighting to prevent the arrest (and we think execution, if Paul’s “I am the worst of sinners” means what most think it means) of both men and women who were Christians. I guess I will end with a request that you tackle that one in your next reply.

Thanks. Jim.

10 Bill Muehlenberg 8.3.07 / 12pm

Thanks Jim

(I am aware that we are both violating my rule about keeping comments short!)

As to your main concern, I am afraid you continue to confuse two separate issues, so let me once more try to explain. Discussions about the original manuscripts, and what should be included in the word of God, has to do with the issue of canonization and the science of textual criticism. We try to discover as best we can what the original text is like, knowing that we do not possess the original documents. Thus textual criticism. This is not identical to the question of inspiration.

I already said I do not have a problem with redactors. They have obviously been used in the Pentateuch and elsewhere. But that is a different issue from the doctrine of inspiration. God could certainly use redactors to help give us the final form of his word.

To put it another way, inspiration has to do with how God delivered to us the final and authoritative word of God, as found in the original manuscripts. Textual criticism, in part, has to do with determining just what those original manuscripts are.

All I have said about the pericope found in John 7:53-8:11 is that the manuscript evidence for it is very weak indeed. I also conceded that it may well reflect a genuine activity of Jesus, but it should not be considered a part of the Christian canon. Thus I do not see it as the inspired word of God. If that bothers you, then you need to interact with the vast majority of NT scholars who have argued such a case.

I do however see the closing chapter of Deuteronomy as being part of the inspired canon, simply because of the lack of problems concerning manuscript evidence as we find with John 8.

I repeat that you are welcome to try make a biblical case for pacifism, but if this were the main passage you use to build it on, your case would be less secure and authoritative than if you relied on other (canonical) texts.

As to your comment, “I would have thought you would have believed that the whole Bible is the word of God,”, of course I do. But you continue to miss the point, The real issue is, just what is the word of God, as contained on the original manuscripts? I fully believe in everything that we have good evidence for considering to be part of the original manuscripts.

And with all due respect, when you say “If you can start dropping the bits that dont fit your preferred views,” your comments are really descending into farce. As I said, the overwhelming majority of NT scholars do not consider the pericope in question to be a part of John’s original gospel. Are you really suggesting that all of these scholars are simply dumping the passage because they do not like its theological implications?

Your other points I believe I have responded to, although of course you do not seem to like my responses.

As to the early Christian pacifists, I do not accept you false dilemma of them being either “stupid or immoral”. They were neither. I would simply argue that they had an understanding of the biblical text which differs from mine. I am thus happy to say that I agree to disagree with them on this issue.

And I fail to see how it follows that if some Christians did not intervene in the arrest of Paul that they had some sort of absolute commitment to pacifism, and/or that we should too. That seems to be a non sequitur.

Finally, a main point of disagreement I have with pacifists (but not the only one), is that they tend to elevate the Sermon on the Mount over much of the rest of Scripture, while I would say it needs to be assessed in the context of the rest of Scripture. Matt. 5-7 should not take priority over other passages, but must be understood in the light of other passages.

As I say, I am content to agree to disagree with you on these matters.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

11 Jim Reiher Victoria 14.3.07 / 9am

H Bill

a few comments.

1) I would not base a biblical case for pacifism on John 8 alone or even primarily. It is a good biblical text to add to the discussion and also to use to argue against capital punishment, but it is not the only text (as you note).

2) I do not hold to discontinuity between the gospels and the rest of the NT: the rest of the NT is pacifist too (just read the book of James and see his indignation at people who take up arms to address injustice and wrong doing! Or consider Revelation and the Christians response to the beast in chapters 13 and 14).

3) Your distinctions between inspired original autographs and copies and editorial additions have left your readers in a dilemma, I suspect. You seem to give the impression that there are now some parts of scripture that are not part of the inspired original autographs (like John 8 1-11, probably, and Deut 34), but are nevertheless, true accounts of what happened, [so far I agree with this] but then – you contend that we don’t have to follow some of these passages teaching or example and we don’t want to include them in material we might apply to our lives [sorry – I don’t agree with this].

4) No bible editions that I am aware of and certainly no bible editions we encourage Christians to read, leave out the “disputed” verses, words, phrases, and paragraphs. If your contention is true, why on earth are we still getting the bibles printed with all these “un-useable” sections in them? How confusing for the average Christian who does not read commentaries, or even read footnotes in their edited bible versions.

5) At the end of the day Bill, no matter how much we try to define terms and talk theologically about inspiration, canonicity, early manuscripts, redaction and copyists, – at the end of the day, we have the Bible as preserved by the sovereign providential hand of God, and the material in it is there for a reason: to guide us and teach us. Our challenge is to handle it well, in a way that honors God and in a way that matures us as believers and makes us more Christ-like.

6) More Christ-like…. that kind of sums it all up in the end. What would Jesus do? How would Jesus respond? How can I live more like Christ? Let’s not forget the primary thing we are about: growing in Christ – being more like him.

Thanks for the rigorous and (I trust) worthwhile debate Bill. I am happy to let you have the last word, so I won’t keep writing back after this entry. Thanks for being open enough to have this debate at all. Some Christians would be quite terrified to discuss such things.

God bless – Jim Reiher

12.. Bill Muehlenberg 14.3.07 / 12pm Thanks Jim

I do not really want a last word – you are free to keep going – but just a few quick thoughts. I am not sure how a plain reading of the NT as a whole, or of James or Revelation in particular, will result in the discovery of an argument for, or doctrine of, pacifism.

Questionable parts of Scripture are clearly labeled as such, (not with a footnote), for example in the NIV, as in the beginning of Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11, etc.

As to “What would Jesus do?,” that can be helpful as a general guide for Christians, but only to a certain extent. It would not help me determine whether I wear white or black socks today. But you would reply, ‘I am referring more to major ethical issues here’. But even there it is limited.

On the issue at hand, you would argue that a person following Jesus would not resist evil. But someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer would say he was doing exactly what Jesus would do, in seeking to stop Hitler though the attempt to assassinate him.

So again, we agree to disagree. But if this discussion helps others to sort out their thoughts somewhat, then it has been a useful exercise.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

13 Jim Reiher Victoria 19.3.07 / 10am

I was not going to keep going, but your introduction of Bonhoeffer requires a response.

As much as I admire and respect that man, I believe that he made the single most monumental mistake of his life when he decided to take up the weapons of the world, in his fight against Hitler.

The scripture says “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal”; “my kingdom is not of this world.. if it was of this world my disciples would fight, but it is not of this world”; and “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”.

Bonhoeffer was compelled by love, but chose a non-Jesus response. The first disciples for 300 years saw their friends and families killed for the faith by different evil emperors at times over those centuries, and they never counseled to fight or try to kill the evil leaders. It only comes after Constantine. The Jesus response (like the epistle of James says) is to pray, and to endure suffering.

James in his epistle, is appalled when people boast that they don’t commit adultery, but they kill, and James says that friendship with the world is enmity with God and he calls on people who justify wars and fighting and killing, to repent and wash their hands and cleanse their hearts and fall on their faces before God and turn their laughter into mourning. It is very much a pacifist epistle! I did my 50,000 word, masters thesis on the epistle of James, and I entered it wondering about liberation theology (since James gets used sometimes to justify such) but I ended concluding that liberation theology is the furthest thing from James mind as he counsels peace making; anti-war; anti-killing; holiness; long suffering; prayer; not copying the ways of the world to redress injustice; and practical aid for the suffering.

The challenge is to be able to live at that higher level of Christ-likeness.

Jim

14. Thanks Jim

This does not have to be the last word; you are welcome to continue if you wish.

The three passages you cite all have to do with the spiritual means of promoting the faith and living the Christian life. Thus all have to do with our heavenly citizenship, but none directly with our earthly citizenship requirements.

We are members of both communities, and our obligations as Christian citizens in this world are not always identical with our obligations as citizens of God’s kingdom.

Thus believers are never to use force to propagate the faith, and we battle spiritual powers with spiritual weapons. But that is a different matter from how I live out my earthly citizenship, and my obligations to maintain justice, on both a personal and social level.

Thus from my perspective none of these verses can be used as an argument for a doctrine of complete pacifism.

And Dietrich and I would disagree with you that he was being un-Christ like here. He was fully convinced he was being like Jesus, and was carrying out his biblical obligations of being a citizen of this world. I agree with him.

As to the early “pacifism” of the Christian church, there are a number of responses one can make, but perhaps too long for a comment, so I will have to draft an article on that. So stay tuned.

And I again fail to see how the book of James can be construed as a document or argument for pacifism. I do agree with you that liberation theology cannot be deduced from James (or any other biblical text, for that matter)

but probably not for the reasons that you would give.

And nobody disagrees that we should all be as Christ-like as possible. The disagreement arises as to how this is expressed and made manifest as we fulfill our obligations to be citizens of this world, while also maintaining our heavenly citizenship.

Thanks again,

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

15 Jim Reiher Victoria 22.3.07 / 7pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

You know Bill, I keep citing verses and you keep explaining them away – and not very convincingly.

I could keep offering more and more verses (Bless those who curse you, bless and do not curse; love your enemies; and then the James 3 idea: the wisdom of earth is not the same as the wisdom of heaven, and the wisdom of heaven is very much about peacemaking; and Jesus: blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God; etc etc etc – and these just off the top of my head.)

I have cited many and could cite many more. But you just keep saying things like: “these passages you cite all have to do with the spiritual means of promoting the faith and living the Christian life. Thus all have to do with our heavenly citizenship, but none directly with our earthly citizenship requirements.” Sorry mate, but I just don’t accept that. There is no such teaching in the New Testament that says anything like that. You are not citing any scripture for such a claim, you are citing a human made rationale to ignore Jesus’ most demanding claims on our lives. There is no “opposites” in the way we relate to God and the way He wants us to relate to people around us. To make such a distinction is yet another clever way to try to ignore the plain meaning of the text.

And at the end of the day, you have not provided a New Testament argument for your position that Christians can/should carry weapons and use them in self defense. You have not provided us with any scriptures that stand up to scrutiny, and the only one you tried to provide was taken from its context (where Jesus told Peter to take a sword to the garden – to fulfill the prophecy that Jesus had to be reckoned as with transgressors).

So you can continue to ignore passage after passage and verse after verse, and you can keep arguing that “Christians can use weapons in self defense” as much as you like, but really, at the end of the day, where is your New Covenant evidence for such an Old Covenant attitude? You forget to fulfill the Old in Jesus Christ. And that brings us right back to where we started.

Clearly we are not convincing each other! But I have enjoyed the debate. Thanks again for having it.

Jim

16 Jim Reiher Victoria 23.3.07 / 6am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

PS – sorry I forgot to add one last comment:

You made this statement above: “Dietrich [Bonhoeffer] and I would disagree with you that he was being un-Christ like here [in trying to kill Hitler]. He was fully convinced he was being like Jesus, and was carrying out his biblical obligations of being a citizen of this world. I agree with him.”

Bill: (1) Bonhoeffer would never have said “I am being like Jesus in trying to assassinate Hitler”. You will not find any quote from him that says Jesus would have actually participated in an assassination attempt on a sinful person. You are claiming far too much here. He would have said that his assassination attempt on Hitler was his own personal outworking of how he felt he should live in the world as a disciple of Christ, but he claimed nothing more than that subjective rationale.

And (2) I totally disagree that Jesus would have said that the answer to Adolf Hitler was to blow him up with a bomb – and to have Christ’s disciples participate in such an action!

Bill: You are justifying terrorism, and claiming that Jesus would approve and even participate. You are way off track here.