Opinion of transformational pacifism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#2.5

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical--which he's created a thread on, which I highly recommend for people who are interested in that specific issue and haven't rehashed their position endlessly already--whereas I was trying to explain why the sets of circumstances that lead to unavoidable (or difficult to avoid) violence are themselves unacceptable and ought to be the targets of our working for a better world.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

No more questions.

Okay then.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The 'international order' part of it bothers me too, which is a large part of why I don't use this as an absolute self-identification.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

Because of the possibly sketchy way the one dude died (in handcuffs, bleeding out in the street basically....though the reality of the situation wasn't as bad as that brief description sounds) or is any killing by a cop a "sin"?

Because any killing is a sin. Though, note that jmfcst and I have significantly different positions on hamartiology, neither of which are especially representative of Christians (mainly because no one position is).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Because any killing is a sin.

Oh....really?  That's not how I read it.  Even in self defense?  To protect others?

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

No, I didn't have to; I've known that he agrees with me and with by far the vast majority of his flock on that for years.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

No, I didn't have to; I've known that he agrees with me and with by far the vast majority of his flock on that for years.

is this an RCC priest?  if so, you might want to add his view to the other thread I just created to measure acceptance of it within the RCC ranks.

No, Episcopalian. Sorry if my use of the word 'priest' confused you. Technically his title is 'rector', but that's a subvariety of a priest in the ECUSA.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We do use 'vicar', but we use it for missionary priests for some bizarre reason, or priests for parishes whose priests are directly appointed by the diocese (my parish has the right to elect our priests from a diocese-written shortlist, hence rector). Also, the Church of England uses 'rector' for parishes where the priest (used to) receives both the greater and lesser tithes, apparently.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, the Church of England uses 'rector' for parishes where the priest (used to) receives both the greater and lesser tithes, apparently.

Yeah, but everyone calls them vicars.

To be fair, he wishes people would call him 'vicar'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

@Nathan,

what is your take on the following verse:

Exodus 22:2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”

So, from your point of view, if killing in self-defense is a sin, which category of sin are you referring to?  In other words: If the defender in Ex 22:2 is not guilty of the sin of bloodshed, then what sin is he quilty of?  The category of sin certainly can't be sexual immorality, or lying, or witchcraft...none of those actions are involved...so what exactly is the sin?

Or, are you saying that in the OT, killing in self-defense was NOT a sin, but in the NT it IS a sin?

Perhaps I should explain briefly, if I may, the admittedly somewhat odd hamartiology that I've been using here.

You may very well be right that there are things that aren't of the Kingdom of God that nevertheless don't in and of themselves incur sin in a fallen world; my point of view is more that the sin is one of disservice by not trying to attain the Kingdom of God to the greatest extent possible. In this sense I would distinguish the laws set out to govern an earthly society in OT from the sense of heavenly 'sin' that I'm referring to. It's a distinction made between merely 'just' and actively 'righteous'; perhaps 'sin' hasn't been the ideal world to be using but I genuinely can't think of another in English that means close enough to what I've been trying to say. (There's one in Japanese, 罪, pronounced 'tsumi' with the u almost silent and the i as in Italian or Spanish, that means exactly what I want it to, but I'm aware that I'm one of very few people on this forum who's at all conversant in that language; the only other one I know of is opebo, and somehow I doubt that's the sort of vocabulary that would interest him.)

I admit that this isn't necessarily a conventionally 'Christian' distinction to make for people and traditions that fall into the category of 'self-described Christians' that we were talking about in that other thread, but it has support in the writings of St Augustine if you're genuinely interested in understanding this better. I fully and freely recognize that he can explain this a lot better than I can. It's also conventional within Eastern Orthodoxy, in which sin is interpreted and described in more medical than legal terms. This is a way of looking at it that I really like and which I feel is closer to the message of Jesus--though since it's a set of interpretive analogies it's not something I'm at all doctrinaire about, whereas what constitutes 'falling short of the glory of God' is.

It's a shame that English doesn't have a more advanced vocabulary for making these sorts of distinctions. I feel like we could have avoided at least some of this argument if the one word 'sin' hadn't been the only one readily available to both of us.

I guess the simplest way to summarize this would be to say that while there's certainly nothing wrong with your interpretation of those passages, I believe that we're called to a higher standard and that it does something of a disservice to not take that call even if it doesn't directly and gravely endanger our souls in the same way that up and shooting someone in the face because one doesn't like the cut of their jib would.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

perhaps 'sin' hasn't been the ideal word to be using but I genuinely can't think of another in English that means close enough to what I've been trying to say.

the problem is not with the word 'sin', because it is clearly and simply defined in the bible as a transgression of God's law.  Therefore, what you and I have been arguing over is NOT the word sin, but rather the difference in how you and I read the contents of God's law for the NT church.

The problem I have is that what you’re placing the guilt of sin where it doesn’t belong.  I don’t like loading people down with unnecessary guilt, especially unwarranted guilt they can’t solve (you’ve defined a sin that there is no way to avoid and thus no way to avoid)

At least most legalism (e.g. wearing white shoes is a sin) has a solution (don’t wear white shoes)…but yours has no solution.

The solution is the grace of God, which is actually more sola fides than I was thinking or what I'd like, but it's the only solution that makes sense to me. Total depravity is one of the few areas in which I agree with the Calvinists, but so is irresistible grace.

I actually do understand the vehemence of your disagreement with me a lot better now, since I know it's profoundly unpleasant and damaging to have guilt where it isn't necessary or called for, so thanks for that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/thesis/spelman/spelman.pdf

(I'm sorry I keep linking you to things rather than trying to advance the arguments myself, but it's the academic in me, with his obsession with citations for everything, and I'm trying to be as humble about this as I can since I am only an amateur theologian.)

This is somebody's theology thesis, which talks about this in terms of both Scripture and St Augustine. As you might guess, it focuses mainly on what I imagine you would consider a highly naive interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, but this should give you a decent idea of where this kind of thought comes from. (By the way, I do know the counterarguments to this way of looking at it, quite well actually, so I'd appreciate it if you'd accept this as a point of disagreement and at least accept that this is something I've thought about a lot, even if it would of course be unreasonable to ask you to agree with me or even think my opinion is valid.) We also run into the problem of where things that are just 'life lessons from Jesus' end and 'commandments begin'; I'm inclined to think that if there even is a difference it's a pretty small and blurry one.

I recommend reading the whole thing, actually, since it's really interesting and even-handed; it's not just a polemic for my position.

Side note: I'd like to apologize for being so much more abrasive about this in earlier parts of this discussion. My cat was very ill and it was wearing on my nerves. I'm glad that we both seem to be having this conversation more calmly now.

Other side note: I'm not going to unilaterally shut down the conversation again, but if you agree with me that we both understand each other's positions relatively well and are able to be civil even we obviously don't agree with or even necessarily respect them, I'd like to ask that we leave this be for now, because this actually takes quite a bit of mental effort for me and I have a lot of things both academically and socially going on right now that require a lot of my attention. Would this be okay with you?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By solution I meant a way to repent and sin no more in that area, which is what your belief in this area lacks since you feel we are put into situations where every available choice is sinful.  To me, repent means to turn around and leave the direction you are going and go another direction…which is different than asking for forgiveness.

If there's a solution I suppose it would be to avoid violent situations or ways of life, but you're right that that's not always possible. I suppose I would say one would just have to muddle along and try to minimize these sorts of things as much as one possibly could, do good works and love justice and mercy in as many areas of life as one can, and trust in the grace of God to see that one has faith and has tried. But even I don't actually enjoy the pessimistic implications of some of my positions, to be honest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thing is, I'm really not trying to be legalistic in that way. In my head at least these things actually tend to be quite emotive, even fervently so; it's just easier to discuss in legalistic terms because that's the sort of vocabulary we tend to apply to this sort of thing in the West. I actually prefer to think of it medically in a sense, as I said a little up above; I feel like if we were more used to the vocabulary of Eastern Christianity a lot of this would have been easier to get across, and I'm sorry I didn't realize your history with (genuinely or superficially) similar sorts of situations.

For what it's worth, given your explanation of that situation and what I know of Herbert Armstrong and his followers, I definitely do think that you were in the right there. I'm sorry if the way I was advancing my arguments reminded you of that; that's the sort of thinking about faith that I really do try to avoid.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For what it's worth, given your explanation of that situation and what I know of Herbert Armstrong and his followers, I definitely do think that you were in the right there. I'm sorry if the way I was advancing my arguments reminded you of that; that's the sort of thinking about faith that I really do try to avoid.

no, you didn't remind of it

Okay, good to know.

I'm really glad we've cleared the air on this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

it was an interesting discussion, don't think the topic had been vetted yet on the religion board

Agreed.

We were both a little angry in the beginning, but now that I think we understand each other better I look forward to any future topics of discussion and debate.