Have you ever had to think through a particular subject and discovered that you're equally attracted to two points of view? Honestly, it's the most frustrating thing! I've been reading on the subject of violence and pacifism lately, and two works of writing have stuck out of the rest: Shane Claiborne's "Irresistable Revolution" and Patrick Meade's series at Tentpegs.
I honestly am not sure if the two of them are diametrically opposed or not (translation: are they really opposite in thinking?), but, whatever the case, each time I read Shane, I find myself thinking "yeah, that's it!" But then I read Patrick, and I think "yeah, that's it too!" I think I'm proving my own point: the truth is never simple. Ever.
Like with violence; Shane talks about what he calls the "myth of redemptive violence," but Patrick thinks that there are times when we are called by Jesus to forcibly defend others. So which is it? Shane talks about military guys working to get out of the military because the military does things against their beliefs, and Patrick has a son in the military of whom he is very proud. Shane says that pacifism means finding a third way around violence that still stands up for others, and Patrick notes that when the UK and Australia banned private citizens from owning weapons, the rate of violent crime quadroupled (and continues to escalate). They're both right, so what do you do with that?
I want to know if Christians should be allowed to play violent sports like hockey or footy. That's a valid question, right?
Or take Jesus. You can point to scripture and say stuff like "see, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life! It's so simple!" and yet I look back at it and wonder, is it really? I mean, what do those even mean? What is the way? What does it mean that Jesus IS the truth? Whose life?
So many questions. Only ninety years (or less) to figure it out. *sigh*
Care to be confused?
I honestly am not sure if the two of them are diametrically opposed or not (translation: are they really opposite in thinking?), but, whatever the case, each time I read Shane, I find myself thinking "yeah, that's it!" But then I read Patrick, and I think "yeah, that's it too!" I think I'm proving my own point: the truth is never simple. Ever.
Like with violence; Shane talks about what he calls the "myth of redemptive violence," but Patrick thinks that there are times when we are called by Jesus to forcibly defend others. So which is it? Shane talks about military guys working to get out of the military because the military does things against their beliefs, and Patrick has a son in the military of whom he is very proud. Shane says that pacifism means finding a third way around violence that still stands up for others, and Patrick notes that when the UK and Australia banned private citizens from owning weapons, the rate of violent crime quadroupled (and continues to escalate). They're both right, so what do you do with that?
I want to know if Christians should be allowed to play violent sports like hockey or footy. That's a valid question, right?
Or take Jesus. You can point to scripture and say stuff like "see, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life! It's so simple!" and yet I look back at it and wonder, is it really? I mean, what do those even mean? What is the way? What does it mean that Jesus IS the truth? Whose life?
So many questions. Only ninety years (or less) to figure it out. *sigh*
Care to be confused?
(to be continued)