# Self defence vs. martyrdom and evangelism



## shackleton (Sep 15, 2008)

I have been reading and hearing a lot lately about the effect physical suffering at the hands of others has on the spread of the gospel, i.e certain people beat on other people, the people beat on do nothing and as a result the beater becomes saved. I have to admit my first reaction to these stories is that, "I would never let anyone do that to me, I would definately defend myself!" I am begining to wonder if I have the right attitude. 

How much abuse should we allow from other people? Should we be pacifists for the sake of the gospel? Should we allow ourselves and our family to become the objects of abuse in the hopes that the abuser will become saved? Is this really a way God uses to bring people to the truth? 

Any thoughts?


----------



## nicnap (Sep 15, 2008)

It hasn't been too long ago that this has been touched on...unfortunately, I have never learned to utilize the search function. 

With that said....


----------



## tdowns (Sep 15, 2008)

*In a nutshell....*

If it's for your Christian faith...then, maybe allowing it is an option, but I'd say not mandatory.

If you're getting beaten for the sake of something other than your Christian faith, fight on!

For although, we can give the robber who beats us our money, what about the next guy, or lady.

So when you self-defend, you also protect others who may be victims of the criminal in the future...assuming of course you win and call the authorities.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 15, 2008)

{sigh} another pacifism thread is going to emerge.

Let me just state, from the outset, that strict pacificism is, in my view, wicked and some of the views expressed in the past on a Christian man's willingness to watch his family be terrorized while he can prevent it but his "faith" prevents him are sub-Christian notions. I'm not going to tolerate that sort of nonsense in this thread so posters be warned.

The 6th Commandment requires the protection of human life. Our "testimony" to others is not our willingness to stand in front of a freight train and have it run over us so people can believe upon Jesus. It is the Gospel that converts the hearts of men and not the demonstration of our fealty to it. 

Paul didn't walk into towns thinking: "I hope I get stoned here so men will see how dedicated I am and believe the Gospel because of my willingness to be reproached." His trust was in the Gospel and he bore that message and was willing to suffer reproach that was inevitable without him going to look for it. We also see Paul, however, preventing harm to himself and others through the magistrate when the throngs demanded his head or that he be scourged. Again, there is no "testimony" to being beaten for Christ and the governing principle would be the protection of life taken by unjust means.

It's interesting how this thread is folding into the recent thread about Reformed mission work and concern for Evangelism. It occurs to me that many of our assumptions about mission work are borne out of revivalistic assumptions that something extraordinary is going to convert people. What makes the "conversion" headlines but the story of men who walk into a village to spread the Gospel and get killed for doing so and then the people see how devoted these men are so, over time, they are converted to Christ. Men don't like to hear about ordinary means and that it's not our lives that convert men but the ordinary preaching of the Gospel and that doesn't mean we need to arrange circumstances where we get martyred nor does it mean that we have to passively accept our own murder or the murder of others thinking it somehow spreads the Gospel. 

For Christ's sake, we ought to be willing to die for our fealty to the Gospel but, before men, we do not owe them our lives by their wicked actions. We need to keep those two ideas separate.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 15, 2008)

Trevor is spot on.

If you cannot discern the attacker's intentions, or if they are not motivated specifically against the Christian faith - then you have the freedom to fight or flee. I'll add that In many cases, though, there is a responsibility to fight.

If you can discern the intentions of the attackers, and they are motivated specifically by hatred of Christianity, then fighting is no longer an option. There is liberty to flee, or to submit to it.


----------



## shackleton (Sep 15, 2008)

First of all, it was not my intention to start a pacifist thread I had just recently finished reading a book from a prominent author, who will remain nameless, who was speaking on the subject of missions and told many unbelievable stories of how people were won over to the gospel through the passivity of Christians. I knew this was not the type of person I was and so wanted to get opinions from others. 

I have to admit the stories are good for business, so to speak, and help move listeners to want to act or give money and it is far more exciting than working hard and laboring day in and day out teaching without any dramatic conversions or stories.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 15, 2008)

Erick,

I didn't assume you would be the proponent of pacificism but there have been elements that have advocated it in the past and I weary of sub-Christian arguments for the position.


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2008)

> If you can discern the intentions of the attackers, and they are motivated specifically by hatred of Christianity, then fighting is no longer an option. There is liberty to flee, or to submit to it.



There is still the option of resistance. While I may allow my property to be taken, I will defend my family. If evil threatens my family I will oppose it by whatever means necessary. If my ability to resist is taken away, I must fall upon the grace and mercy of God.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 15, 2008)

> There is still the option of resistance. While I may allow my property to be taken, I will defend my family. If evil threatens my family I will oppose it by whatever means necessary. If my ability to resist is taken away, I must fall upon the grace and mercy of God.



Perhaps I should note that in the vast, vast majority of cases I would file the attacker's intentions as "unknown" - and thus physical resistance is almost always in play. 

The only time where I think a persecutor's intentions are so clearly known that they limit my potential ability to resist would be in a clearly stated case of persecution by an evil governmental authority. I cannot imagine, in any other case, the attacker clarifying the reason for his assault - only governments do this, as the bad ones are typically proud of it and love to hear their own justifications for it.

In the famous case of Jim Elliot for example, I do believe forceful (even lethal) resistance was justified, though not mandatory for himself. If his family were present when the spears started flying, it may even be mandatory. I certainly hope I would respond that way, in that case.


----------



## shackleton (Sep 15, 2008)

I know in most of the stories I have heard I would have shot the person to protect myself or my family and this would have supposedly hindered the conversion of the assailant. 

I don't know if anyone remembers the story a few years back about the man who escaped from court and killed a few people and kidnapped a woman who was reading "Purpose Driven Life" she talked to him and helped him and this supposedly gave him a change of heart and he eventually turned himself in. This is an example of a person I would have not wasted a moment putting a bullet in, but I guess then he would not have gotten converted.


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 15, 2008)

Yes, I remember that story. It was in Atlanta, or somewhere in the "south". I wonder if he is still in the faith? A true convert? I hope so because prisons need witnesses.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 15, 2008)

FrielWatcher said:


> Yes, I remember that story. It was in Atlanta, or somewhere in the "south". I wonder if he is still in the faith? A true convert? I hope so because prisons need witnesses.


Happened at the Atlanta Courthouse. As I recall, the woman was also a meth addict, and was doing meth with the guy while being held hostage. I have no idea how the guy finally turned out, but I think the woman finally got off drugs.

I think the whole 'purpose driven' aspect was probably overblown, another one of those sensational conversions we are attracted to. But down the street there was possibly a faithful shepherd expounding the scriptures to some non-descript sinner who was through those means truly redeemed out of death and sin, and they never ended up on the nightly news. If there was rejoicing in heaven that day, it was more over the second case than the first.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

As a personal figure one has not only the right but the duty to defend one's self and vigorously fight evil - with the fists or whatever other weapons available - if needed.

I am far from pacificistic. The most God-honoring thing to do in some situations is to kill the enemy.


There are times, however, when one is a public personage in the role of ministry. 

In these cases it appears that one cannot be condemned for not fighting back. 

When the Jews began to stone Stephen he could have ran away from them, ran at them, threw rocks back, etc, but instead he continued his ministry and ended his life by praying for the attackers. The same for many of the martyrs in the arena. Are you willing to condemn these examples? IF we are duty-bound to resist, then we are duty-bound to resist to the absolute end.


If anyone has a problem with this sort of "pacificism", then they need to prove that Stephen was wrong and that the martyrs who passively went to their death in the arena ended their lives in sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> As a personal figure one has not only the right but the duty to defend one's self and vigorously fight evil - with the fists or whatever other weapons available - if needed.
> 
> I am far from pacificistic. The most God-honoring thing to do in some situations is to kill the enemy.
> 
> ...



Pergamum,

What, in the text, makes you believe he had this option? It's important to remember that Stephen's "testimony" was his preaching of the Word, which resulted in his stoning. His stoning (and subsequent prayer) were a consequence of it but you seem to indicate, by your plea, that he stuck around to be stoned simply so he could utter that prayer in his murder. Are you indicating that Stephen willingly allowed men to be guilty of murder so he could pray for them (ends justify the means).

The text, rather, indicates that the men rushed at him and stoned him. There may have been a certain reservation that there was little he could do at that point or things happened too quickly. I don't want to speculate but neither must I speculate, on Scriptural silence, that Stephen was obligated to allow others to be guilty of murder at that point for a higher purpose.

There are no Scriptures that I'm aware of that use the logic that a person has a "public persona" that would change the equation about whether they ought to allow themselves to be killed as a "testimony" to others. Again, I don't believe our "testimony" is our willingness to be stoned and there is explicit contrary evidence in the actions of Paul when circumstances permitted him to avoid evil treatment at the hands of his malefactors. It's one thing to be in the middle of a mob and another when the magistrate has drug you off and you have a chance to speak for yourself. 

Obviously, in situations where certain death awaits (i.e. in the middle of a mob bent on your death), it would be best to demonstrate hope and die in a dignified manner rather than trying to take a few people with you on the way out. When it's a hundred against one then you're not going to save your life by trying to escape and I think the best option would be to pray as Stephen did.

I'll close with a note that there are several ocassions where a mob is about to try to kill Jesus. On one occasion they attempt to run Him over a cliff but the text indicates in each case that He passed through the crowd. I'm never certain how this happens exactly but the bottom line is that, if escaping a martyr's death is inherently bad, then Christ's refusal to be murdered before His time would be considered bad on a certain level even if one argues that it was not yet His time.


----------



## TimV (Sep 16, 2008)

> What, in the text, makes you believe he had this option? It's important to remember that Stephen's "testimony" was his preaching of the Word, which resulted in his stoning. His stoning (and subsequent prayer) were a consequence of it but you seem to indicate, by your plea, that he stuck around to be stoned simply so he could utter that prayer in his murder.



In addition, one thinks of the case of Paul being let out of Damascus in a basket to avoid the Jews who wanted to kill him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2008)

TimV said:


> > What, in the text, makes you believe he had this option? It's important to remember that Stephen's "testimony" was his preaching of the Word, which resulted in his stoning. His stoning (and subsequent prayer) were a consequence of it but you seem to indicate, by your plea, that he stuck around to be stoned simply so he could utter that prayer in his murder.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, one thinks of the case of Paul being let out of Damascus in a basket to avoid the Jews who wanted to kill him.



Good point. I was also thinking of Elijah and other prophets who did not turn themselves in to be killed by wicked men. They didn't avoid prophesying but they didn't walk into "opportunities" to be martyred.

Again, I think we need to step back and question a few assumptions that we might have grown up with (I know I did). Is martyrdom preferred to the preached Word for the conversion of souls? I think we're all conditioned to believe that zeal will attract/convert a man's heart but it's the Gospel that does that. I can grant that our zeal and confidence may impress others but lest they hear the news of what Christ has done (and not what we have done) they will not be converted. 

I'm certain the zeal of a Muslim to die in the hope of paradise impresses some but do any of us ever feel a burning in the bosom for Allah when we read of yet another person willing to go to their death by a bomb vest?

Consider this in the case of Elijah - there might be people that consider him cowardly for hiding from Ahab for years. I suppose he could have died at the hands of Ahab immediately after stopping the rain. But what about the widow and the widow's son? What about the Word of God that he testified to for those years? What about everything he did that suceeded his "opportunity" to be martyred?

Let us not fear those that can take our lives for the Gospel but let us not mistake that our deaths somehow do more for the hearts of men than the God-breathed Word of God.


----------



## TimV (Sep 16, 2008)

> I'm certain the zeal of a Muslim to die in the hope of paradise impresses some but do any of us ever feel a burning in the bosom for Allah when we read of yet another person willing to go to their death by a bomb vest?



Yes, some Christians do. A book dealing in-depth with all the suicide bombings over the last 20 years showed some interesting facts. Like it was started by secular Marxist Hindus in Sri Lanka, that most Muslims that have done it are motivated by politics more than religion and several Christians in Lebanon have done it. A basic course in Christian ethics were they would learn that the ends don't justify the means might have helped, but with suicide bombers it's usually more a question of hating their enemies rather than loving their God.


----------



## shackleton (Sep 16, 2008)

These are all good points. In the book I read the author made the claim that our suffering is a way of spreading the gospel and helps complete Christs suffering and told of many examples of people who gave themselves up to be martyred or beaten for the sake of the gospel and as a result people were converted. 

In the book of Revelation the martyrs in heaven can't wait to have revenge taken out on the people who killed them and are pleading with God to bring it quickly. I don't imagine the people who were killed in the first century would have chosen to be killed but would rather have lived a full life but they had no choice. Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 13: 3 that if one gives up his body to be burned but has not love he has nothing. 

There were Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany who were gladly giving their lives up "for the sake of God," and the Nazi's were glad to oblige them. I am sure it can become en vogue to have oneself martyred but this does not save the person and it does not necessarily convert anyone. There could be just as many people who say, "Look at that idiot!"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2008)

TimV said:


> > I'm certain the zeal of a Muslim to die in the hope of paradise impresses some but do any of us ever feel a burning in the bosom for Allah when we read of yet another person willing to go to their death by a bomb vest?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some Christians do. A book dealing in-depth with all the suicide bombings over the last 20 years showed some interesting facts. Like it was started by secular Marxist Hindus in Sri Lanka, that most Muslims that have done it are motivated by politics more than religion and several Christians in Lebanon have done it. A basic course in Christian ethics were they would learn that the ends don't justify the means might have helped, but with suicide bombers it's usually more a question of hating their enemies rather than loving their God.



Yes, I understand this but the point of why Muslims are motivated is sort of beyond the larger point. The main point is that every religion can have people that are willing to express great zeal for their faith.

What I try to direct people's attention to when I teach them about "witnessing" is that our zeal or enthusiasm for Christ is not our witness. The hope that we have within is objective. The Muslim may be motivated by many desires and he may even impress others with his zeal but there is no substance to their faith. It's equivalent to being zealous for the tooth fairy in the final analysis.

In contrast, our hope is grounded in a living God and while we might have zeal for Him on the basis of what He has done our aim is not to try to impress others with our zeal but to point people in the direction of what we are hopeful for: Christ and Him crucified for the forgiveness of sins. Our zeal, in one sense, is indistinguishable from the Mormon or Muslim but Who we're testifying of and the message we have in the Gospel is the power of God for salvation. THAT is unique and cannot be ignored.

Thus, although Stephen and other heroes of the faith are great examples of those that did not consider this life worth anything to be compared to their inheritance in Christ, it was not their martyrdom that is the object of worship nor does it convert the heart. Those that stop at stories of martyrdom and do not hear the Gospel may have good heroes to emulate in zeal but they are still dead in sins and trespasses unless they cling to the object of faith that these men and women of old believed upon.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2008)

shackleton said:


> These are all good points. In the book I read the author made the claim that *our suffering is a way of spreading the gospel and helps complete Christs suffering *and told of many examples of people who gave themselves up to be martyred or beaten for the sake of the gospel and as a result people were converted.





I rest my case. Christ's suffering is complete in itself. Our suffering adds *nothing* to Christ's work.


----------



## TimV (Sep 16, 2008)

It always comes down to Christ plus, doesn't it?


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Sep 16, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> {sigh} another pacifism thread is going to emerge.
> 
> Let me just state, from the outset, that strict pacificism is, in my view, wicked and some of the views expressed in the past on a Christian man's willingness to watch his family be terrorized while he can prevent it but his "faith" prevents him are sub-Christian notions.




Amen.

You better believe that I am more than willing to fight tooth and nail to protect my family. Personally, I believe that a man's willingness to watch his family be terrorized is not being faithful to his vocation as a husband and father and is the worse form of cowardice.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > As a personal figure one has not only the right but the duty to defend one's self and vigorously fight evil - with the fists or whatever other weapons available - if needed.
> ...



One always has the option to resist. He had enough time and energy to pray and I am sure he could see the crowd getting angry. The crowd gve enough time in shedding their coats and giving them to Paul in order for Stephen to do SOMETHING.

But what the text mentions is Stephen's prayer and not any resistance on his part.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > As a personal figure one has not only the right but the duty to defend one's self and vigorously fight evil - with the fists or whatever other weapons available - if needed.
> ...




Rich:

You sound like you affirm much of the same things I affirm.

----We are not duty-bound to resist always. 
----But we are to be good stewards of our lives so that we may preach again.
----We are not wrong to resist in most cases,
----But we may lay aside that right in some cases


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

TimV said:


> > What, in the text, makes you believe he had this option? It's important to remember that Stephen's "testimony" was his preaching of the Word, which resulted in his stoning. His stoning (and subsequent prayer) were a consequence of it but you seem to indicate, by your plea, that he stuck around to be stoned simply so he could utter that prayer in his murder.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, one thinks of the case of Paul being let out of Damascus in a basket to avoid the Jews who wanted to kill him.




*If* it is our duty to ALWAYS resist or try to preserve our lives, then we MUST resist, even if we are facing a losing battle. 


It is always "an option" to resist - even if the odds are against us. We can die resisting, but at least we die resisting. To say "It is not an option." Is to say that we are making decisions based upon results rather than duties.



Stephen gave quite a LONG sermon and I am sure that he could see the crowd becoming angry. 

At what point does one turn tail and run? Is Stephen's judgment now impugned because he stuck around too long? He should have read the crowd better? He should have only made them a little bit mad and then slipped away? Was he dumb even to endanger himself by speaking publically in a hostile place anyway?



If we are always to resist or flee then we are to resist or try to flee even when it seems like there is no escape. The martyrs in the coliseum went to their deaths passively. 

This is sin if we are always to resist or flee, or die trying. One is obligated to try to run at the enemy, flee from them, try to choke the lion, try to kill the ones stoning you....but Stephen turns his eyes to heaven and prays. The martyrs sing hymns while lions devour them.


I am not a pacifist. We are to be good stewards of our lives. 



My assertion again is two-fold: 

(1) I do not see evidence that we are required to be pacifists. 
(2) But neither do I see evidence that in all occasions are we required to resist or fight.

And again I try to draw a difference between our roles as private citizens and our public roles as Christian witnesses. We are allowed to personally defend ourselves. We are allowed to flee. If being publically persecuted for the Gospel, however, the jury is still out what the best course of action is to do. One is allowed to be a non-resistant martyr and pray only - at lest it seems so from the NT.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

TimV said:


> > What, in the text, makes you believe he had this option? It's important to remember that Stephen's "testimony" was his preaching of the Word, which resulted in his stoning. His stoning (and subsequent prayer) were a consequence of it but you seem to indicate, by your plea, that he stuck around to be stoned simply so he could utter that prayer in his murder.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, one thinks of the case of Paul being let out of Damascus in a basket to avoid the Jews who wanted to kill him.



Remember that Paul was also beaten half silly and dragged out of a different city, and then went back into the same city.

Are we to condemn him for that?


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 16, 2008)

> Act 7:54-60 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. (55) But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (56) And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." Nothing yet to indicate Stephen knew they were plotting to kill him.(57) But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. (58) Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. Now he is rushed, seized and carried out by a mob and stoned. Nothing here says he did or didn't try to resist, just that he was overpowered and stoned. (59) And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (60) And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.So as he's dying, he cries out a prayer for his attackers, still no evidence that he did or did not resist, only that as he was being murdered, he prayed.


My comments in blue. Are we possibly making inferences about this event that the scripture does not explicitly support?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

Acts 14:

19And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. 

20Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe. 





It is amazing how many times the disciples of Christ were dragged before magistrates, confronted by angry crowds and beaten. Once this occurs, I never read of them resisting physically.


Paul was beaten how many times? All of the disciples were killed except John. Obviously personal safety was only one of many factors that relegated their behavior and they were not obligated to always choose the safest courses of action,


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > These are all good points. In the book I read the author made the claim that *our suffering is a way of spreading the gospel and helps complete Christs suffering *and told of many examples of people who gave themselves up to be martyred or beaten for the sake of the gospel and as a result people were converted.
> ...




Aversion to suffering for the Gospel, however, reveals what we really believe about the Gospel.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

The Bible gives us these responses for when we suffer persecution for the Gospel:


Thanks given to God and rejoicing done - James 1:2-5 and 1 Peter 4:13

Love your enemies, pray for them, and bless them -Matthew 5:44. 





I Peter 2:

19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 

20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 

21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 

23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 

24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 





God's Undeserved Gift to the World: Christian Sufferers :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > These are all good points. In the book I read the author made the claim that *our suffering is a way of spreading the gospel and helps complete Christs suffering *and told of many examples of people who gave themselves up to be martyred or beaten for the sake of the gospel and as a result people were converted.
> ...



Yes, and many twist Colossians 1:24 to say this.

But this verse STILL needs to be dealt with:

_24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: _


John Piper (Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 2003) says this:

"Paul's sufferings, complete Christ's afflictions not by adding anything to their worth, but by extending them to the people they were meant to save. What is lacking in the afflictions of Christ is not that they are deficient in worth, as though they could not sufficiently cover the sins of all who believe. What is lacking is that the infinite value of Christ's afflictions is not known and trusted in the world. . . . So the afflictions of Christ are 'lacking' in the sense that they are not seen and known and loved among the nations. They must be carried by the ministers of the Word. And those ministers of the Word 'complete' or 'fill up' what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ by extending them to others" (268). 

On page 269:

"God intends for the afflictions of Christ to be presented to the world through the afflictions of His people. . . . Our calling is to make the afflictions of Christ real for people by the afflictions we experience in bringing them the message of salvation. Since Christ is no longer on the earth, He wants His body, the church, to reveal His suffering in its suffering" 

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/sermons/bydate/1992/806_Called_to_Suffer_and_Rejoice_To_Finish_the_Aim_of_Christs_Afflictions/


Understood this way, THERE IS something lacking in Christ's suffering - it's appointed presentation to the world, which we are appointed to perform.


_17From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. (Galatians 6:17 ESV)_


----------



## CDM (Sep 16, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > shackleton said:
> ...



The lack is in us not in Christ's suffering. You ought to consider reframing your words here.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

Chris: Done said it that way.


----------



## Quickened (Sep 16, 2008)

TimV said:


> It always comes down to Christ plus, doesn't it?



Its a shame that people feel that what Christ did wasnt enough. What could we possibly do to add anything to Christ's perfection? How foolish is man that he would think Christ's work is insufficient?


----------



## shackleton (Sep 16, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > shackleton said:
> ...



You must be psychic because this is the book and the part of the book I referred to in the post you quoted


----------



## crhoades (Sep 17, 2008)

Here is a great site full of free resources (translated into various languages!) that provides information on non-violent resistance. It is not pacifism. After reading many resources there, I can tell that as Christians we haven't studied this line of thinking enough. We want to quickly take to extremes and do battle. Pacifism or armed resistance. When you study the Reformation, you see this advocated and even practiced by Calvin etc. And For what it's worth, I think there is a legitimate time to take up arms. But I also think, the use of deadly force should always come as a last option and after much prayer and contemplation (if the time allows for it). 

Download some of the books, some of which are short, and let me know what you think. From what I can tell, it looks like a furthering of ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE's work. Here are the FAQ's on the site to give a gist of what it's about:

Albert Einstein Institution - Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions
Q. *What is nonviolent action?*

A. Nonviolent action (also sometimes referred to as people power, political defiance, and nonviolent struggle) is a technique of action for applying power in a conflict by using symbolic protests, noncooperation, and defiance, but not physical violence. Nonviolent action may involve: 

1. *Acts of omission*—that is, people may refuse to perform acts that they usually perform, are expected by custom to perform, or are required by law or regulation to perform; 
2. *Acts of commission*—that is, people may perform acts that they do not usually perform, are not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden to perform; or 
3. *A combination of the two*.
 As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent.

Q. *What are the applications of nonviolent action?*

A. Nonviolent action can and has been used to: 


• *Dismantle dictatorships*
• *Block coups d’état*
• *Defend against foreign invasions*
• *Expel foreign occupation*
• *Provide an alternative to violence in extreme ethnic conflicts*
• *Challenge unjust social and economic systems*
• *Develop, preserve and extend democratic practices, human rights, civil liberties and freedom of religion*
• *Resist genocide*
 For more information, see the applications of nonviolent action section on our web site.

Q. *What are the methods of nonviolent action?*

A. There are a multitude of specific methods of nonviolent action or “nonviolent weapons.” Nearly two hundred have been identified to date, and without doubt, scores more already exist or will emerge in future conflicts. Three broad classes of nonviolent methods exist: 



1. *Nonviolent protest and persuasion*, 
2. *Noncooperation*, and 
3. *Nonviolent intervention*.
 For more information on these methods, see our list of 198 methods of nonviolent action and also _The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Vol. 2: The Methods of Nonviolent Action_, (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973).

Q. *How does nonviolent action work?*

A. Nonviolent action works by getting a population to withdraw its support and obedience from the opponents. By getting key groups to withdraw their consent, nonviolent action is able to remove the sources of power for a regime or opponent group. 

These sources of power are: 


1. *Authority*—the belief among the people that the regime or opponent is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it; 
2. *Human resources*—the number and importance of the persons and groups that are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the regime or opponent; 
3. *Skills and knowledge*—needed by the regime or opponent to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups; 
4. *Intangible factors*—psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the regime or opponent; 
5. *Material resources*—the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation; and 
6. *Sanctions*—punishments, threatened or applied, against the disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime or opponent to exist and carry out its policies.
 All of these sources of power, however, depend on acceptance of the regime or opponent, on the submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of society. When this obedience, acceptance, and support are withdrawn, the regime or opponent can be severely weakened or toppled.

Q. *What are the ways that nonviolent action can produce change?*

A. Nonviolent action operates by producing one or more of these four mechanisms of change: 


1. *Conversion*—changes in attitude cause the opponents to voluntarily make concessions 
2. *Accommodation*—the opponents negotiate and compromise 
3. *Nonviolent coercion*—the opponents are weakened so much that they are forced to capitulate 
4. *Disintegration*—the opponents are weakened to the point where their regime simply falls apart.


Q. *What is the role of strategy in nonviolent action?*

A. Historically, nonviolent action has often been an improvised type of action—sometimes even a spontaneous occurance—with little or no advanced strategic planning to guide it. However, just as strategic planning is used in military conflicts and other types of activities, strategic planning can also be used in nonviolent action to increase its effectiveness. Strategic planning involves choosing clear objectives, devising a grand strategy (or master plan), more limited strategies for specific objectives that fit within the grand strategy, tactical (or short-term) planning, and the choice of specific methods to achieve tactical and strategic objectives.

Q. *What is the difference between "nonviolent action" and "nonviolence"?*

A. "Nonviolent action" is a technique of waging conflicts and is identified by the type of action employed. It does not require any specific ethical, moral, or religious beliefs to be used. 

"Nonviolence" is often used to mean many different phenomena, but generally refers to the absence of violence and to religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that reject violence.

Q. *Does nonviolent action equate with passivity or submissiveness?*

A. Nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness, and cowardice. Just as in violent action, these must first be rejected and overcome.

Q. *Does nonviolent action rely only on verbal or psychological persuasion?*

A. Nonviolent action is not to be equated with verbal or psychological persuasion, although nonviolent action may be used to apply psychological pressures to achieve attitude change. Nonviolent action, instead of just words, is a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching of forces in conflict.

Q. *Does nonviolent action depend on converting or swaying the hearts of the oppressors?*

A. Nonviolent action does not depend on converting your opponents to willingly give in. It can produce powerful coercive effects and can force opponents to concede or can destroy their power.

Q. *Does nonviolent action depend on the assumption that people are inherently “good”?*

A. Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are inherently “good”. The potentialities of people for both “good” and “evil” are recognized, including the extremes of cruelty and inhumanity.

Q. *Does nonviolent action require any religious beliefs to be used effectively? Can nonviolent action only be used by pacifists?*

A. People using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints, nor do they need to hold particular religious, moral, or ethical beliefs. Nonviolent action has predominantly and successfully been practiced by “ordinary” people all over the world, including by people who believed violence to be morally acceptable. 

For more information about the use of nonviolent action around the world, see the case studies section of our web site as well as our publications on case studies.

Q. *Is nonviolent action an Eastern or Western phenomenon?*

A. Nonviolent action is at least as much of a Western phenomenon as an Eastern one. Indeed, it is probably more Western, if one takes into account the widespread use of strikes and boycotts in the labor movement and the noncooperation struggles of subordinated nationalities.

Q. *Can nonviolent action work effectively against violent opponents?*

A. In nonviolent action, there is no assumption that the opponents will refrain from using violence against nonviolent actionists. The technique is designed to operate against violence when necessary and historically has been used against extremely violent and ruthless regimes.

Q. *Can nonviolent action be used for both “good” and “bad” causes?*

A. There is nothing in nonviolent action to prevent it from being used for both “good” and “bad” causes, although the social consequences of its use for a “bad” cause are likely to differ considerably from the consequences of violence used for the same cause.

Q. *Does nonviolent action only work in a democratic system? Can it be used and succeed against dictatorships?*

A. Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within a democratic system. It has been widely used against dictatorial regimes, foreign occupations, and even against totalitarian systems. 

For more information about the different uses of nonviolent struggle, see the applications of nonviolent action section on our web site.

Q. *Does nonviolent action take longer to produce victory than violence?*

A. Nonviolent action does not always take longer to produce victory than violent struggle would. In a variety of cases, nonviolent struggle has won objectives in a very short time—in as little as a few days. Other struggles may require considerably more time. The time taken to achieve victory depends on diverse factors—primarily the strengths, strategy, and tenacity of the nonviolent struggle group.

Q. *Does nonviolent action require a charismatic leader (like Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.) in order to be effective?*

A. Nonviolent action does not depend on a charismatic leader in order to be effective. There are many examples of nonviolent action being used effectively without strong centralized leadership in the resistance (as in Serbia 2000 against Slobodan Milosevic). Exclusive dependence on a charismatic leader can even be detrimental to success, while wide diffusion of the skills to wage noncooperation and defiance can produce more reliable power.


----------

