Zion, IL
A.B. Dada
—

Since Mr. Schweitzer has agreed to discuss Just War Doctrine, I’ve spent a day talking with the wife and a few good friends about the proper angle to portray my viewpoints on Augustine’s popular theory. I believe that the Just War Doctrine is immoral, and unbiblical, while Curtis takes the opposite view.

At first, I thought I had a slam dunk, but after discussions with others, I realized that my primary debate tool is useless in this venue. For those who know me personally or deeply, they are aware that I prescribe to a minority view on Christianity and the Bible, notably the Preterist or Covenant eschatological doctrinal view. I assume that Curtis, as well as most Christian readers here, prescribe to the more common Dispensationalist doctrinal viewpoint on Biblical matters. This complicates the issue significantly for me, but does not necessary make it an impossibility.

Since the majority of Christian readers here are of the Dispensationalist, I believe it is in my best interest to “attack” the debate from their point of view rather than from my own. I used to adhere to that same doctrine for many years, but I had many concerns that plagued me regarding significant portions of the New Testament, which led me down the path to accept many aspects of the Preterist viewpoint, although not all. I would appreciate, and openly pursue, comments from people who see me leave the Dispensationalist path in my oppositions (or even agreements) to Mr. Schweitzer’s posts at his blog. For those friends and readers who are Preterist, or who are heading in that direction, I will try to address those views at a later date, or after the main body of the replies I post here. I will be very explicit in defining that view separately, and hopefully without any attempt to sway or provoke a change of doctrine for the reader.

One caveat: I am very potent as a convincer toward the Preterist viewpoint, I’ve been told. It is NOT my place, or my wish, to get anyone reading any of my posts to accept or even consider that viewpoint until they are led spiritually to question their own doctrine of beliefs. I find the Dispensational viewpoint significantly lacking in both grace and justice, but I also accept that it is the status quo doctrine of the 20th century for most Evangelicals, and I will not be one to judge another’s views, even if they are counter to my own. I serve hundreds of Dispensational congregations fruitfully, and do not openly promote my own views in that servitude. If you feel I am promoting a heretical or opposing doctrine within any of these future posts (other than when I place a warning that I will do so), please post a comment and hold me accountable. While I have made many inroads in my own private home assembly to teach people the varying views of Christianity (and other religions!), I don’t believe that this blog is the place to do so. /caveat

The setup
The basis for my part of the debate will focus on a few areas of the Bible that I believe show that the Just War Doctrine can be challenged by Christians who do not advocate the use of force against others. I sincerely believe that Christ also held to the ideas of non-resistance and acceptance of hatred from others, which can be used as a powerful weapon to shine the light of love, peace and charity to others in hopes of getting them to question the basis for their own hatred.

Definition of a Christian
I also accept that there are New Testament verses that are useful in defending force on others, and I hope to dig deep into those verse to prepare against Curtis’ side of the debate in utilizing those same verses. I will start by saying that all verses of the Bible are contextual, not absolute. Using one verse without explaining the context of the paragraph or book is a process that many seemingly heretical pastors and preachers use to advocate fear and force and control of the individual. Christ was/is about freedom and submitting to God and other mortals, not about making God or other mortals submit to you. When it comes to dealing with other Christians, the Dispensationalist has practical and strong advice/advocations in how to deal with brethren. If we can not agree with those basic tenets, the debate will be fruitless and a wate of time for the writers and readers. It is my hope that we can at least come to an agreement with some or all of these points, at least from an Evangelical Dispensationalist viewpoint.

Preterist Prespective: It is my believe that the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Age is over, fulfilled completely in two “Comings of Christ” that have occurred and will not occur in the future. I believe we live in the “Reign of God” which is transliterated incorrectly in many modern Bibles as the future “Kingdom of God.” It is my believe that Christ’s actions and words were incredibly spiritual in nature, not physical or pertaining to a mortal Kingdom./Preterist

Some verses against the use of force
Two simple verses that seem to show that Christ promoted peace, always:
Matthew 5:9 Jesus: blessed are the peacemakers
Matthew 5:39: if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Matthew 5:39 has an intriguing transliteration problem that Rob Bell (who I generally do NOT agree with) pointed out: the striking of a cheek was an act that was common in ancient times, always being performed with one particular hand. The idea of striking someone on the other cheek would cause the striker to use the back of their hand, which put them on the negative side. I do believe that this is the case, but I am not sure that the transliteration problem is a negative one necessarily. Still, I think this verse is the weakest in defending against the Just War Doctrine.

There are also verses that promote the idea of the use of force:
Eccles 3:3: a time to kill
Luke 3:14: Peace of Rome, could keep their jobs

Many Dispensationalists believe that the Old Testament still offers insight and direction for the Christian. I vehemently disagree, finding the Old Testament’s direction as useless after Christ. Nonetheless, I will try to provide Christ’s unique insights into Old Testament verses that show that Christ was against much of the teachings of the mortal men of the Israelite Bible.

Since this is just a setup explanation, I believe it is important to close with Augustine’s viewpoints on the Just War Doctrine. This is a paraphrasing, but should be conclusive:

Augustine said that before one could use force against an “enemy,” one must make these considerations:
1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Just on the face of it, I believe that even if you prescribe to the Just War Doctrine, most if not all of these 4 considerations have been broken in modern warfare, both terrorist-driven and State-enforced. This view, though, is not part of our debate. I hope we can proceed in this debate from a neutral aspect: more of a “what if” than a “what happened.” It would be unbalanced if I was to use examples of any recent war against Mr. Schweitzer, so I will refrain from those angles.

Please feel free to join us by tracking back from your own blog to either of our blogs, or entering your own comments on either site. I hope that we can do justice to both the Word of God, and provide some security for those believing either viewpoints, as well as opening a door for both sides to inquire deeper into their own beliefs.

Preterist Prespective: Many people know that I truly believe we live in the Reign of God age, and in doing so, we are kings and shepherds of the world, but not kings akin to the rulers of the Old Testament, nor shepherds of animals. It is my firm belief that our only option to teach the world is pure peace, love and charity. If we walk away from those 3 teachings, we quickly succumb to the worship and support of a mortal king to drive our lives, rather than the Immortal King who provides grace, love and charity through our hands, minds, mouths and bodies./Preterist

Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
In my previous article titled Islamofascism versus Christofascism: a short study, I linked to a site by UnderAgeThinker, who I know now is named Joseph W. Kraft. In response to my post, Mr. Kraft says the following, which I will comment on part by part:

I copletely agree with you that we should know our own Bible and study other faiths. Christian do not do near enough of this and it is undefendable. You seem very well read and I’m sure you have arrived at your conclusions through careful study. However I must dissent with you on a few points.

Dissent is the finest form of communication, since it allows us to continue the discussion in hopes of providing some ideas unthought of by both of us. I appreciate the response on my blog.

First, “Islamofascist” is a term used to describe people who murder their own sisters because they were raped, who behead journalist, and do it because they believe Allah requires it. I’m not saying Allah does or does not, but that is what they believe. To call someone a “Christofascist” is to equate them with the Islamofascists accept that they believe they are doing the will of Christ. That is a powerfull thing to say. And you at least imply, that I am a Christofascist because I wrote an article critical of Ron Paul. I think that is going too far.

Actually, the term Islamofascist could also be used to describe the Pharisees and Ancient Israelites because they also believed in the same response to those who were against their Rule of Law. If someone sinned, it was the people’s place to stone them to death, including those who are raped (sex outside of marriage, even rape, was considered sinful by both the Ancient Israelites and some Muslims). I am currently about to start a short series of debate points with another blogger regarding the Christian/Catholic Just War Doctrine, and why I believe it is not the will of Christ or God the Father. I sincerely did not mean to imply that YOU are a Christofascist, even though I do believe that many Evangelicals are currently more fascist than individualist. I do believe that Christ’s words and actions prove that God is an individualist, who used the Ancient Israelites to prove that the Mosaic Convenant was not something that mortals could truly live by (i.e., theocracy or worldly covenant). Christ’s New Covenant (the Reign of God, or mistakenly called the Kingdom of God due to false translations) provides for individual decisions outside of theocracy.

Secondly, I do not dispute that most Muslims are peaceful. All I said was that the terrorists believe they are doing the will of Allah. I make no claim as to if this is the correct understanding of the Quran or not but, it is their understanding.

I accept that — but I also felt the need to explain how SOME Christian Evangelicals today believe that the Koran gives Muslims a reason to force theocracy on the world, when it fact it does not. The Koran, like the Bible, leave the issue of the Reign of God to individuals who form a new Kingdom without borders, mortal kings or the use of foce.

Thirdly, As you yourself said, there are different translations of the Quran. Your complaint about the translation I used seems to be (based on your bolding of the text) based on the first half of the verse. (I do not deffend the translation, honestly I’m not even sure what translation it was and I think I will switch it to Pickthall because of the complaints.) Yet I was refering to the latter half, “and all submit to the religion of Allah alone.” The translation you cite says the same thing in more eloquent language, “and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” So I think the translation is more or less irrelevant to your criticism.

Maybe that’s true, but we also see in the Old Testament and New Testament the view of “all” nations and people, which are horrible mistranslations of the original language and intent of each book. Of course, as a Preterist myself, it does produce a significant difference in my interpretation versus that of the majority of Evangelicals in terms of the translations we use of our own Bible. My problem with Christians is that I meet so many (maybe a dozen or more a week) who have never really inquired as to the meaning of specific verses or phrases in their own Bible, and just accept what their Pastor/Preacher/Leader tells them is Truth. When a Christian misconstrues the Koran, that’s OK because it isn’t their book. When a Christian misconstrues the Bible, it is up to other Christians to make note, and try to offer their perspective lest we allow that misconstruing as Truth for the future.

Finally, How did I take Surah 8:39 out of context? I let it speak for itself. I didn’t even write comentary on it.

I believe you did take it out of context because it seems you were promoting the ideology that Muslims, and the Koran, propose that they conquer the world and force everyone to bow to Allah (”God”), when it fact the Koran says to protect their “homeland” and Allah will take care of the rest. It is a common misconception for Christians and other non-Muslims that Muslims have a different doctrine of spreading their holy book than Christians do. Also, Christians today seem to have a misconception of our own Bible that leads many of us to believe in such unbiblical beliefs such as the Just War doctrine, as well as support of the State/government, or laws that supposedly prevent sinful nature from showing itself.

Yes, in the end it is just a doctrinal issue, but if we Christians can’t agree, how can we move forth to force non-Christians to live a certain way if we ourselves can not agree on which way is correct?