Should Christians Participate in “Just War”?

Welcome back.  Hopefully all of you local Seattle dwellers survived the massive heat-wave this week.  Now that it has cooled off a bit, we’ll get back to our discussion on “Jesus & Non-violence”.

Today, I want to welcome another guest blogger.  His name is Dr. Gregory Boyd.

DSC_0133

Dr. Gregory Boyd

Greg Boyd received his Ph. D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (1988), his M.Div. from Yale Divinity School (1982) and his B.A. from the University of Minnesota (1979).

He was a professor of theology for 16 years at Bethel University (St. Paul, MN) and he is the founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church, an evangelical mega-church in St. Paul, MN.  (for full bio, click here)

Greg is also the author of numerous books, my favorite of which are:

“The Myth of a Christian Nation”

“The Myth of a Christian Religion”

“Satan & the Problem of Evil”

“Letter from a Skeptic”

Dr. Boyd is one of my favorite “thinkers” and writers and though I have mentioned his books on this blog before, I cannot stress enough how highly I recommend the books listed above.   Boyd gives incredible “legs” and voice to this and many other conversations from a well-respected and scholarly perspective.

I asked Dr. Boyd to contribute to this discussion on non-violence and he gave me permission to share this essay that he wrote regarding the question: “Does following Jesus rule out serving in the military if a war is just?”

———————————————————————————————————————————

Jesus and Military People

Some soldiers responded to the preaching of John the Baptist by asking him what they should do.  John gave them some ethical instruction, but, interestingly enough, he didn’t tell them to leave the army (Lk 3:12-13).  So too, Jesus praised the faith of a Centurion and healed his servant while not saying a word about the Centurion’s occupation (Mt 8:5-13; Lk 7:1-10).

Christian-Air-Force-eAnother Centurion acknowledged Christ as the Son of God at the cross (Mk 15:39) without any negative comment being made about his military involvement. And the first Gentile to receive the Good News of the Gospel was a centurion described as a God-fearing man (Acts 10:22, 34-35).  Clearly none of these texts endorse military involvement.  But just as clearly, they don’t condemn it.  For these and other reasons, most American Christians accept that the New Testament does not forbid serving in the military.

While I respect that people will have differing convictions about this, I must confess that I myself find it impossible to reconcile Jesus’ teaching (and the teaching of the whole New Testament) concerning our call to love our enemies and never return evil with evil with the choice to serve (or not resist being drafted) in the armed forces in a capacity that might require killing someone.

The above cited texts show that the Gospel can reach people who serve in the military.  They also reveal that John the Baptist, Jesus and the earliest Christians gave military personal “space,” as it were, to work out the implications of their faith vis-à-vis their military service.  But I don’t see that they warrant making military service, as a matter of principle, an exception to the New Testament’s teaching that kingdom people are to never return evil with evil.

What About “Just Wars”?

The traditional response to the tension between the New Testament’s teaching and taking up arms to defend one’s country is to argue that fighting in the military is permissible if one’s military is fighting a “just war.”  As time honored as this traditional position is, I’m not at all convinced it is adequate.

For one thing, why should kingdom people assume that considerations of whether violence is “justified” or not have any relevance to whether a kingdom person engages in violence?  Jesus is our Lord, not a human-constructed notion of justice.  And neither Jesus nor any other New Testament author ever qualified their prohibitions on the use of violence.  As George Zabelka remarked, the just war theory is “something that Christ never taught or even hinted at.” (1) We are not to resist evildoers or return evil with evil – period.  We are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, bless those who persecute us, pray for themythofachristiannationpeople who mistreat us and return evil with good – period.  On what grounds can someone insert into this clear, unqualified teaching the massive exception clause – “unless violence is ‘justified’”?

Many have argued that such grounds are found in Romans 13.  Since Paul in this passage grants that the authority of government ultimately comes from God and that God uses it to punish wrongdoers (Rom. 13:1-5), it seems permissible for Christians to participate in this violent activity, they argue, at least when the Christian is sure it is “just.”  The argument is strained on several accounts, however.

First, while Paul encourages Christians to be subject to whatever sword-wielding authorities they find themselves under, nothing in this passage suggests the Christians should participate in the government’s sword wielding activity.

Second, Romans 13 must be read as a continuation of Romans 12 in which Paul tells disciples to (among other things) “bless those who persecute you”( vs. 14); “do not repay anyone evil for evil” (vs. 17); and especially “never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (vs. 19).  Leaving vengeance to God, we are to instead feed our enemies when they are hungry and give them water when they are thirsty (vs. 20).  Instead of being “overcome by evil,” we are to “overcome evil with good” (vs. 21).

Now, in the next several verses, Paul specifies that sword-wielding authorities are one means by which God executes vengeance (13:4).  Since this is the very same vengeance disciples were just forbidden to exercise (12:19, ekdikeo) it seems to follow, as Yoder argues, that the “vengeance” that is recognized as being within providential control when exercised by government is the same “vengeance” that Christians are told not to exercise. (2)

In other words, we may acknowledge that in certain circumstances authorities carry out a good function in wielding the sword against wrongdoers, but that doesn’t mean people who are committed to following Jesus should participate in it.  Rather, it seems we are to leave such matters to God, who uses sword-wielding authorities to carry out his will in society.

How do we know when a war “just”?

Thirdly, even if one concludes that a follower of Jesus may participate in violence if it is “just,” we have to wonder how a kingdom person could confidently determine whether a war is “just” or not.  Few battles have been fought in which both sides didn’t believe their violence was “justified.”  The reality is that the criteria one uses to determine what is and is not “just” is largely a function of where one is born and how one is raised. How much confidence should a kingdom of God citizen place in that?

can-we-talkFor example, unlike most other people groups throughout history and yet today, modern Americans tend to view personal and political freedom as an important criteria to help determine whether a war is “just” or not.  We kill and die for our freedom and the freedom of others.  But why should a kingdom person think killing for this reason is a legitimate exception to the New Testament’s command to love and bless enemies?  Can they be certain God holds this opinion?

Of course it seems obvious to most Americans that killing to defend and promote freedom is justified, but fundamental aspects of one’s culture always seem obviously right to people embedded in the culture.  This criterion certainly hasn’t been obvious to most people throughout history, including most Christians throughout history.  And it’s “obviously” wrong to many non-Americans — including Christians — around the globe today.  Even more importantly, it certainly isn’t obvious in Scripture.  In this light, kingdom people in all countries need to seriously examine the extent to which the ideal that leads them to think a war is or is not “just” is the result of their own cultural conditioning.

Assessing this is no easy matter.  It helps to be mindful of the fact that the person you may end up killing in war probably believes, as strongly as you, that they are also fighting for a “just” cause.  It also helps to consider the possibility that they are disciples of Jesus just like you, perhaps even mistakenly thinking their cause is a function of their discipleship just as some American soldiers believe.  You have to believe that all of their thinking is merely the result of their cultural conditioning — for you obviously believe they’re wrong to the point of being willing to kill them — while also being convinced that your own thinking is not the result of cultural conditioning.  Can you be absolutely sure of this?  Your fidelity to the kingdom of God, your life and the lives of others are on the line.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, we grant that political freedom is a just cause worth killing and dying for.  This doesn’t yet settle the matter for a kingdom person contemplating enlisting in war (or not resisting being drafted into war), for one has to further appreciate that there are many other variables alongside the central criterion of justice that affect whether or not a particular war is “just.”

Do you know – can you know – the myriad of personal, social, political and historical factors that have led to any particular conflict and that bear upon whether or not it is “justified?”

Misc+209For example, do you truly understand all the reasons your enemy gives for going to war against your nation, and are you certain they are altogether illegitimate?  Are you certain your government has sought out all possible non-violent means of resolving the conflict before deciding to take up arms?  Are you certain the information you’ve been given about a war is complete, accurate and objective?  Do you know the real motivation of the leaders who will be commanding you to kill or be killed for “the cause” (as opposed to what the national propaganda may have communicated)?  Are you certain that the ultimate motivation isn’t financial or political gain for certain people in high places?  Are you certain that the war isn’t in part motivated by personal grievances and/or isn’t being done simply to support or advance the already extravagant lifestyle of most Americans?

Given what we know about the corrupting influence of demonic powers in all nations, and given what we know about how the American government (like all other governments) has at times mislead the public about what was “really” going on in the past (e.g. the Vietnam war), these questions must be wrestled with seriously.

Yet, even these questions do not resolve the issue for a kingdom person, for a kingdom person must know not only that a war is “justified” but that each and every particular battle they fight, and the loss of each and every life they may snuff out, is justified.  However “justified” a war may be, commanders often make poor decisions about particular battles they engage in that are not “just” and that gratuitously waste innocent lives.  While militaries sometimes take actions against officers who have their troops engage in unnecessary violence, the possibility (and even inevitability) of such unjust activity is typically considered “acceptable risk” so long as the overall war is “just.”  But on what grounds should a person who places loyalty to Jesus over their commander accept this reasoning?

myth of a christian religion

"Myth of a Christian Religion"

The fact that a war was “justified” means nothing to the innocent lives that are wasted, and the question is: How can a kingdom person be certain in each instance that they are not participating in the unnecessary and unjust shedding of innocent blood?  It’s questionable enough that a follower of Jesus would kill their national enemy rather than bless them simply because it’s in the interest of their nation for them to do so.  But what are we to think of the possibility that a follower of Jesus would kill someone who is not an enemy simply because someone higher in rank told them to?

The tragic reality is that most people contemplating entering the armed forces (or contemplating not refusing the draft), whether they be American or (say) Iraqi, North Korean or Chinese, don’t seriously ask these sorts of questions.  Out of their cultural conditioning, most simply assume their authorities are trustworthy, that their cause is “justified,” and that each person they are told to kill is a justified killing.  They unquestioningly believe the propaganda and obey the commands they’re given.

Throughout history, soldiers have for the most part been the unquestioning pawns of ambitious, egotistical rulers and obedient executors of their superior’s commands.  They were hired assassins who killed because someone told them to and their cultural conditioning made it “obvious” to them that it was a good and noble thing to do.  So it has been for ages, and so it will be so long as people and nations operate out of their own self-interest.

The Kingdom Alternative

But there is an alternative to this ceaseless, bloody, merry-go-round: it is the kingdom of God.  To belong to this kingdom is to crucify the fleshly desire to live out of self-interest and tribal interest and to thus crucify the fallen impulse to protect these interests through violence.  To belong to this revolutionary kingdom is to purge your heart of “all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice” (Eph 4:31)—however “justified” and understandable these sentiments might be.

To belong to this counter-kingdom is to “live in love, as Christ loved you and gave his life for you” (Eph 5:1-2). It is to live the life of Jesus Christ, the life that manifests the truth that it is better to serve than to be served, and better to die than to kill.  It is, therefore, to opt out of the kingdom-of-the-world war machine and manifest a radically different, beautiful, loving way of life.  To refuse to kill for patriotic reasons is to show “we actually take our identity in Christ more seriously than our identity with the empire, the nation-state, or the ethnic terror cell whence we come,” as Lee Camp says.

Hence, while I respect the sincerity and courage of Christians who may disagree with me and feel it their duty to defend their country with violence, I myself honestly see no way to condone a Christian’s decision to kill on behalf of any country.

—————————————————————————————————–

Endnotes

(1) G. Zebelka, “I Was Told It Was Necessary,” [Interview] Sojourners, 9/8/80, p.14.

(2) J. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2nd ed. 1994 [1972]), 198. See also Hays, Moral Vision, 320-31.

Further Reading

Beller, K. H. Chase, Great Peacemakers (LTS 2008)

Brimlow, R. What About Hitler? (Brazos, 2006)

Eller, V. War & Peace (Wipf & Stock, 2003 [1981])

Roth, J. Choosing Against War (GoodBooks, 2002)

Trocme, A. Jesus and the NonViolent Revolution (Wipf & Stock, 2003 [1973])

Trznya, T. Blessed are the Pacifists (Herald, 2006)

Advertisements

When My People Prey – (Part 1)

I’m really excited to introduce to you today an exceptional guest who will be helping us in our discussion on “Jesus and Non-violence”!!

n1629356414_162991_2311192

Dr. Brad Cole & family

This is Dr. Brad Cole and he is going to be assisting us in understanding how to make sense of all the violence we find in the Old Testament; a tough topic whether you are a pacifist or a “just-war” proponent.

Brad and his wife Dorothee are both neurologists and he is the course director for the 1st and 2nd year neuroscience medical students at Loma Linda University.  Brad has a weekly bible study with the medical students. The video and recordings of this can be found at www.godscharacter.com. You can read his full bio HERE.

logo

Check out Brad's website HERE!

Because this topic is such a vast one, Brad has put in a great deal of effort to be thorough and I think you will appreciate the result.  However, because of the length, we will be breaking his essay into TWO posts.  And though it is a bit of reading, I promise you will not be disappointed.  Brad has a lot of answers to the questions that many of you have asked.    Welcome to the conversation, Brad!

——————————————————————————————–

“Come and see what the LORD has done. See what amazing things he has done on earth. He stops wars all over the world; he breaks bows, destroys spears, and sets shields on fire. ‘Stop fighting,’ he says, ‘and know that I am God, supreme among the nations, supreme over the world.’”
(Psalm 46:8-10)

gq

click here to see the full slideshow

Many read the Bible and conclude that there are legitimate situations that call for a violent response. In fact, many have quoted scripture to support violent actions and we don’t need to go back to the Crusades for examples of this. Just last month it was revealed that Donald Rumsfeld extensively used Bible quotes in his daily briefings to George Bush with regards to the Iraq war.

These included “rah-rah” photographs of American soldiers with captions such as “Therefore put on the full armor of God…” (Eph. 6:13)

Another photo depicted soldiers kneeling in prayer next to the words, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Here I am Lord, Send me. ”  (Isaiah 6:8)

And finally there was a picture of Saddam Hussein next to the verse, “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”  (1 Peter 2:15)

At the same time, however, it seems to me that there is a recent ground swell of individuals who believe that the Kingdom of Christ should never use violent means, even against enemies. I am not referring to a group of politically motivated individuals, or an anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war crowd. Rather, it seems to me that there is a growing movement that is seeing with greater clarity that the Kingdom of Christ is nothing like any kingdom of the world.

gq_rumsfeld_briefing_s10_090517a

click here to see the full slideshow

The verses used by Rumsfeld were so radically taken out of context. Their use to support violence of any kind was nothing short of dishonest. It seems to me that he could have made a much better case for going to war in the name of God if he had wanted to, because of course the Bible does records times when God told his people to fight. Imagine if Rumsfeld had quoted these words of God:

“Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don’t leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children, and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.”
(1 Samuel 15:3)

Perhaps words like this were too strong – even for someone like Rumsfeld – and here is the real challenge for those who make the claim that Christians should advocate absolute nonviolence. If the Bible records God as commanding his people to fight and even to kill babies on occasion, how is it possible for anyone who holds the Bible to be the inspired word of God to take this position?

Most who advocate nonviolence have focused their arguments on the teaching of Christ who never killed or hit anyone. As Alden Thompson said, “When he cleansed the temple, he attacked the furniture, not the people.” (1)   The teachings of Christ really cannot be used to support violence of any kind, although some have tried. For example, Jesus’ words about the disciples needing 2 swords have been used as a point in favor of violence, but I love the quote that Nick Loyd found on this:

“Two swords for twelve Apostles? Truly they are dull scholars who thence infer he meant that they should literally buy two swords to fight with!” (2)

The real challenge to nonviolence lies in the Old Testament and so we must first spend a little time reviewing some violent history.

1.    Jesus: God of the Old Testament

The first option we need to dismiss immediately in trying to reconcile “Gentle Jesus and his violent Bible” (3)  is to split the Trinity in any way.  Many times Jesus referred to himself as the “I AM” – the same title God used when he spoke to Moses at the burning bush.

hagia_sophia_vestibule_christ_mosaicPaul said that the God who went with the children of Israel was Christ:

“All ate the same spiritual bread and drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from the spiritual rock that went with them; and that rock was Christ himself.”
(1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

And Jesus would explain that the entire Bible is the story of him – the Son of God:

“You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you’ll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me!”
(John 5:39)

But even if someone were to take the position that it was the Father who spoke and did all those things in the Old Testament, that shouldn’t change a thing. In Jesus we can say that the Father and Son are precisely the same in heart, mind, and character.

“For a long time I have been with you all; yet you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Why, then, do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?’”
(John 14:8-9)

Somehow we need to wrap our minds around the fact that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament. If that paradox doesn’t immediately fry our neurons, let’s try to think this through.

2.    God stoops to meet us where we are

We often view God as inflexible, changeless (“I change not!” — Mal. 3:6) and that his every word and action must reflect the absolute ideal. That is not the story of the Bible, however, which reveals countless examples of God “giving in” to something that was light years from the ideal. This was how Jesus explained the Old Testament. For example, after he seemed to contradict the Old Testament divorce laws,

Divorce“Some Pharisees came and tried to trap Him with this question: ‘Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ‘Haven’t you read the Scriptures?’ Jesus replied. ‘They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And He said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.’ ‘Then why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away?’ they asked.
(Matthew 19:3-7)

Please don’t miss Jesus’ spectacular reply – this is critically important to our question:

‘Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.’”
(Matthew 19:8)

In the Old Testament, divorce was remarkably cruel. You don’t like your wife, get rid of her and bring a new one in the following week. You don’t like her, send her out on the streets and get another. It was the essentially the end of that woman’s life. Something had to be done and so we have Old Testament divorce rules. But notice, Jesus’ explanation of why the Old Testament divorce rules were given explains at least half of the hard to understand rules and stories in the Old Testament. Jesus admits in this explanation that his actions and rules in the Old Testament do not reflect the ideal – far from the ideal, in fact. What Jesus is saying is that “in your hard-hearted rebellion I had to say things and do things as a concession because it was the only way that I could reach you. It was not what I had intended.”

In the Old Testament we see God stooping to meet a rebellious people:

“I did his, because they had rejected my commands, broken my laws, profaned the Sabbath, and worshiped the same idols their ancestors had served. Then I gave them laws that are not good and commands that do not bring life.”
(Ezekiel 20:24-25)

jesuswashingfeet

Good News Tour Conference

Rather than abandoning his people forever, God gave them laws and commands that were “not good” and that did not reflect the ideal of character or his kingdom. But yet, this was apparently the only way he could stay in contact with them.

Let’s briefly list some of the many examples of God “giving in” to something that was not the ideal and I will try to lay this as a foundation for all the fighting and violence as well:

A.    Polygamy:

The practice of polygamy was common in Old Testament times, even among “men of faith” like Abraham, David and Solomon. It seems that it would have been “too much, too fast” for God to go on record as saying “I forbid polygamy!” Instead, God condescended to allow for the practice, but with stipulations to move his people in the right direction,

“If a man takes a second wife, he must continue to give his first wife the same amount of food and clothing and the same rights that she had before.”
(Exodus 21:10)

Rather than bluntly laying down the law from the onset, “I forbid polygamy”, God tried to make this horrible practice more humane until he could finally lead his people away from it altogether.

B.    Private vengeance:

In Old Testament times, if you were chopping wood and the blade flew off your axe and killed someone walking by, under the accepted system of private vengeance it would be expected for the family of that man to hunt you down and kill you – even though everyone would acknowledge that it was an accident. And so God, rather than saying “I forbid private vengeance” (once again “too much, too fast”) created a safe place to flee. When the high priest died (which might be decades later), the obligation was fulfilled and finally the man could leave that city. Is this the ideal? No, this is the God patiently nudging the people in the right direction.

C.    The monarchy:

Did God approve of the monarchy? Instinctively we might say “yes” as we think of King David and that Jesus was a descendant of David, but yet this was not God’s plan. The people said, “We want a king” God said, “No you don’t. That’s a terrible idea. He will take your men to fight for him. He will take your women to join his harem? He’ll raise your taxes. Don’t do it!” The people said, “No, we want a king.” Remarkably, God’s reply, after telling them that it was a terrible idea was to say,

“Do what they want and give them a king.”
(1 Samuel 8:22)

Once again, God gave in to their desire, but it was not his plan.

D.    False conception of justice:

As the people entered the Promised Land, we discover that their conception of “justice” was distorted. This is revealed by their words to Joshua,

“Whoever question your authority or disobeys any of your orders will be put to death.”
(Joshua 1:18)

Had the disciples said this to Jesus we can be sure that his rebuke would have been severe and to the point. But when we understand that this is the standard of justice at this time, we realize that what Achan did just a few days later was to disobey God. If disobeying Joshua should result in death, then what should the penalty be for disobeying God? Do you see the dilemma God is in?

superstock_999-493_b~Achan-and-His-Family-Stoned-to-Death-Posters

Achan & family stoned to death

Tim Jennings has a very good illustration on this point (4).   A few years ago an Iraqi grocer and his family were killed and the grocery store was burned down because he had the audacity to place celery sticks next to tomatoes. What’s the problem with that, you ask? Some felt that this was highly offensive because it could be interpreted as an erect male and so he was killed.

Now, if you were appointed governor of this town and you were creating law, let’s say that you decided that drunk driving was serious and that you wanted a penalty that was sufficient to deter this behavior. Suppose that you chose a $500 fine and 5 days in jail. What would this imply to the people? If celery sticks next to tomatoes results in death, would this not suggest that drunk driving is far less serious? How do you effectively reach people when their sense of justice is entirely warped?

But, of course, the other difficult aspect of Achan’s story is that not only was Achan stoned to death, but also his wife, children…even the pets. Why? Once again, we are dealing with a culture, time, and a conception of justice that is so different from ours. In our time and society, we champion freedom and we are deeply individualistic, but this was not true in Achan’s time. During this time, one’s person and one’s personality extended to the entire family and so Achan’s sin, in the minds of the people, equally involved everyone in his family (5).  And so, once again, God condescended to work within a system of justice that we cannot identify with and that was far, far, from the ideal – and I think it made God sick.

E.    “Eye for an eye”:

Jesus didn’t deny that he gave the rule “An eye for an eye” during a chaotic and violent time, but he did forbid this practice for his followers, once again implying that this rule was given only to reach us in our heard hearted rebellion.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you…You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your friends, hate your enemies.’ But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become the children of your Father in heaven.”
(Matthew 5:38-44)

mt05_38

"You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth..."

Despite these clear and cutting words of Jesus, Christians still generally practice “eye for an eye” methods in the world but yet we are commanded by Christ to “not take revenge on someone who wrongs you.” And so when one country A bombs country B because they have been wronged, call that violent response whatever you want, but do not call it a “Christian” action or associated it with the name “Christ” in any way! The words bear repeating: “Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you…love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

In Jesus we can say that Gandhi was right, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

F.    Women:

Examples of God giving in to something that is far less than the ideal come from the New Testament as well. When Paul was dealing with the church of Corinth which was coming out of idolatrous worship, he had to use these same methods. A man was sleeping with his step-mother, people were getting drunk at the Lord’s Supper, and the worship experience was chaotic. Just down the street in Corinth was the Temple of Apollo. According to legendary accounts, there may have been as many as 1,000 temple prostitutes who “served” at any given time in this temple. In order to lead these immature Christians away from this form of false worship and everything associated with it, Paul had to say this:

“…God does not want us to be in disorder but in harmony and peace. As in all the churches of God’s people, the women should keep quiet in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak…If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting.”
(1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Is this the ideal or is Paul meeting these people where they are?

footnotes:

(1)  Good News Tour conference 2006
(2)  Alexander Campbell, “An Address on War”, Millenial Harbinger, 1848, pg. 375
(3)  A great sermon title by Alden Thompson
(4)  Good News Tour, 2007
(5)  This is known as “corporate justice”

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Okay, lots to chew on… Even though I’m totally impatient and excited to show you the rest of the essay, I’ll post PART 2 in a few days to give you some time to read all the way through it.

Keep thinking!