Is Violence Bad?

Is  All Violence Bad ?

Naive people of the modern PC variety sprout nonsense like “violence never achieves anything”.

This is manifestly untrue!

Evil people who use violence do frequently achieve their evil ends. Bandits, murderers and rapists to name a few, cause a great deal of suffering by their violence.

If this mantra-like saying is intended to mean something like “never achieves anything good” it is false in this sense also.

It is simply a sociological commonplace that violence or the threat of violence as an ultimate sanction is the basis of all civil order.

True, those who prize individual liberty will have a much more restricted view of how much control is beneficial and necessary for social order than say the leaders of a totalitarian regime! This is very important – but a topic for another time. For the moment let us take the case of a liberal constitutional democracy, where the rights of the individual are equitably balanced against the rights of others

What do I mean by the threat of violence? To take an everyday example : We (mostly) obey the speed limit. It would be nice to say we do it because we know that it is the right thing to do. However we all know this is not the case. Our motivation to obey the speed limit owes a lot to the fact that we will be fined if we don't.

In Melbourne radar controlled speed cameras were introduced some decades ago. Very quickly people discovered that a flash in their rear view mirror heralded a letter from the police telling them they had to pay a speeding fine or go to court. Government statistics as well as anecdotal evidence showed that the new speed cameras produced a dramatic reduction in speeding right across the community.

We obey for fear of being fined. If we transgress and get fined we pay the fine because we know that if we don't we will be summonsed to appear in court where the fine will be much greater. We are mostly smart enough not to refuse a summons because we know that eventually that would result in the police knocking on our door. If things do get to that stage, people generally submit quietly to arrest because they know that if they resist arrest the police will resort to violence. In the very rare instances where someone has taken resistance to greater levels we know that ultimately the authorities have will use however much violence is necessary to subdue them.

So while compliance with the laws of the land is generally achieved without actual resort to violence, this is only because the ultimate threat of violence is well understood.

It is simply a fact of life that in this world – where there is evil and people bent on doing evil – we need police and soldiers who can if need be “out-violence” any evildoer.

So it should come as no surprise that the Bible highly commends many people in military callings

and says of civil powers that (the ruler) “does not bear the sword for nothing he is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring God's punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4ff) (This flags the really big question of the proper role and limitations of authorities – but another time please!)

The list list of commended warriors is very large. And for those who would say it is only in the Old Testament the counter examples are many. A few examples are:  John the Baptist's command to soldiers who came to him: “No bullying, no blackmail – make do with your pay” is a classic – soldiers were needed: but ones who did their job honestly! Jesus extravagantly commended the faith of an officer in the army occupying their country. Another officer in the occupying force, Cornelius, was singled out as a man approved by God.

One bit of history from Melbourne where I live illustrates this: In 1923 there was a strike by police constables over poor pay and conditions.

The police strike lasted only about three days. But civil order quickly broke down with rioting and looting in the city, and three people were killed. Order was only restored after some 5,000 volunteers – mostly ex-servicemen – were sworn in as 'special constables' and sent onto the streets.

A disturbing fact was that the rioters and looters were later determined by the courts to have been, not criminals as one might expect, but ordinary citizens with no previous record of crime. This is a salutary lesson that we need police and that they need to wield the threat of violence.

So my conclusion is:

Violence in the service of evil is indeed evil. Appropriate violence or the threat of it to restrain evil is quite a different matter.

Charismatic Movement

My Adventures With God : 
CHAPTER 6 : The Early Charismatic Movement

While all this was happening there were major upheavals going on in the Turramurra Methodist Church. It is the early 1970's, the Charismatic Movement is bringing renewed vitality to mainline churches around the world. There were both good and bad aspects, as I experienced at Turramurra.

Drew Hill, the well loved minister moved on. A new minister was chosen. (I can't remember his name and Freud would probably have had something to say about that!). In the month or so between being appointed and actually arriving the minister and his whole family underwent a profound conversion experience in the “Charismatic Movement”.

They, and more particularly their teenage son and daughter hit Turramurra like a whirlwind. There was already a large teenage youth group. The forceful personalities of the pair and their stories of supernatural things like speaking in tongues and miracles created an immediate effect. The practices like informal gathering to sing catchy scripture-set-to-music songs and the strong emotionalism resonated strongly with the spirit of the 70's.

Among adult members of the church there was a divide. Some were drawn to the movement some were not. Some found the small groups with the singing, praying and sharing very helpful. Some found the whole thing confronting, overly-emotional, and of dubious spiritual depth.

A case in point were the Melbourne family. Husband, wife and six children were a central part of the youth scene. “Mel” as Les Melbourne was affectionately known was an always present feature of youth activities. Never leading, there were young people who very capably did that – just there keeping an eye on things and available to any who wanted to talk. He was sensible, down to earth, of deep faith in Christ and understanding of people. One illustration: He worked for a large corporation. He used to start every day by praying for the wisdom to see the things that needed to be dealt with first, and the wisdom to do these tasks well. One time he foresaw that upper management would order lay-offs. So he talked to the workers, used his contacts throughout the industry and found jobs for some of them to simply transfer over to. When the order came through to cut the workforce there were no forced retrenchments because these arrangements had already been made in a timely and sympathetic way.

“Mrs. Mel” was equally remarkable in perhaps a less visible way. She combined caring efficiently for Mel and the six children with running an open house that was virtually a drop-in centre for the young people of the church and neighbourhood. Together they managed to be a powerful force for good. Their care, hospitality, listening ear and wise counsel had a tremendous stabilising effect on a very large group of us (yes, me too!) going through the turbulent teens and twenties.

Mrs Mel. and the children were all part of the charismatic scene. Mel was not. In time he was one of those who worked to persuade the minister to move on. Yet they managed to maintain their family unity.

In the general congregation, unity was not maintained.

The minister believed that he was being inspired by the Holy Spirit when he preached. I don't know what his preaching had been like previously, but at Turramurra it was long winded, repetitive and vacuous. Towards the end one could tell who the scheduled preacher was the moment one turned into the street where the church was. If it was the charismatic minister there was just a smattering of cars parked there, if it was someone else both curbs were packed right down the street.

One contrast in preaching that I still recall was between the charismatic minister and an old retired pastor. The retired pastor radiated a love for and knowledge of God and a great understanding of scripture. By comparison the charismatic was just froth and bubbles.

Me? I was only ever a watcher on the fringe. But by the end it was the bad bits that stuck in my mind. The preacher's evidently false belief in his inspired preaching. The effect the over-emotionalism had on some of the young people. The claims of miracles (leg lenghtening was a favourite) didn't ring true. The exclusivity and superiority of the inner circle.

Sue and I were among the many who left the church. The experience left me with a healthy caution in my future encounters with the whole pentecostal movement – even though I would say I am equally a “Holy Spirit believer”. (Well no, I would actually want to say “Trinitarian believer” - I worship and adore God Father, Son and Holy Spirit: but the point is that I do believe in the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's work in and through a believer just as much as they do!)

Ethics of War Pt.2

Ethics of War – Pt.2

One Sunday in my then parish in Vermont (the suburb of Melbourne – not the US State) I gave as a children's talk the story of David and Goliath. Straight after the service a lady came up to me brim full of anger and told me in no uncertain terms that she did not bring her children to church to have them hear war glorified.

I was astonished. Foolish me, I had not kept abreast of politics and the new 'political correctness'. I just told Bible stories in the belief that if God had them recorded in the Bible then there was something we could learn from them (OK I didn't tell the David and Bathsheeba story to children – but I did to teenagers).

This lady's reaction was symptomatic of the endemic failing in humanity in every age – that people judge the Bible by their standards rather than letting the Bible be the judge of their standards.

Does the Bible glorify war? No! Not in the least, but it does praise virtue that is shown in war. That is a very different thing!

In David's case in facing down Goliath, it was courage, resourcefulness and above all trust in God. When all the seasoned warriors of his people were retreating in fear from the challenge to do single combat with the giant Goliath, David volunteered. His resourcefulness in utilising speed, agility and a long range weapon (his sling) is most remarkable. His trust in God is his supreme virtue. He sees Goliath's challenge as the Philistines gods against their God. The challenge must be accepted.

Since their God is the one true God, victory is assured. The story bears out that David's faith was proved correct.

Perhaps modern people's problem is being too simplistic. The Bible is both more subtle and more precise. More consistently moral yet more realistic in its view of the world. So in various aspects it depicts both sides of the coin so to speak. Take these for example:

The Bible does not even envisage the possibility of people being pacifists, yet extols the virtues of seeking peace: “Blessed are the peacemakers” etc.

On one hand God goes (to use a modern phrase) absolutely ballistic against war crimes and also only slightly less 'ballistic' against people who start wars just to expand their borders.

On the other hand, God raises up military leaders for the ancient Israelites when they are in need, He gives military prowess and strength. He advises their military leaders on tactics to defeat invading enemies. He even miraculously causes mysterious mass deaths in an invading Assyrian army, causing them to withdraw.

The Bible says God hates violence and murder. So the description of evil people: “Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. They pursue evil schemes; acts of violence mark their ways.” (Isaiah 59:7) and even stronger words :

“The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.” (Psalm 11:5)

Yet military people figure among his favourites, with abundant examples from Joshua through to the soldiers in Jesus day.

We even find God miraculously healing Na'aman – Not only is Na'aman a successful army commander but a foreigner who has actually been fighting against the Israelites.

Again on the meta-question of warfare we see two sides. On one side an example where at one stage God apparently sets up a situation where there will be continued conflict so that the fledgling Israelite nation will have trained soldiers: “These are the nations the Lord left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan (he did this only to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience):” (Joshua 3:1,2)

On the other he depicts one of the blessings of heaven being an end to war “They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4)

Even from this small selection one can see how easy it is for people who come to the Bible with pre-conceived ideas to selectively present quotes to bolster these ideas. The real world is is more complicated than their model. God is perhaps the ultimate realist. He knows exactly how the world is and how fallen human nature operates. He manages to have an absolute moral being and yet take in reality and the 'big picture' to show the way his sort of people should act.

Both the jingoistic warmongers of the past and the PC anti-war / anti-military advocates of the present are only looking at half the picture.

War is terrible, but sometimes less terrible than letting evil go unopposed.

War is terrible, but evil people will force it on good people until it is made a thing of the past in Heaven. So as the saying goes “seek peace and prepare for war”.

Next Week : Is all Violence Bad ... ?

Ethics of War

The Ethics of War

This is one question where churches seem to espouse whatever is the flavour of the month in their base culture. There are of course a host of reasons both sociological and spiritual why this is so, but the problem for me at this point is what their apparently their negotiable ethics says about the Bible as a source of moral teaching.

Whatever position churches have at a particular time they generally claim vociferously that this is what the Bible teaches. That phenomenon is a problem when I want to establish the Bible as a keyhole to glimpse the absolute standard of morals!

Take the topic of the ethics of war. The opposite extremes of the bloodthirsty mediaeval church and the pacifist Quakers I will leave to one side for the moment. I want to take as an example modern and mainstream church attitudes.

My first parish included a little rural town called Lang Lang. There was a photo in the church vestry that I found both haunting and inspiring. It was of the minister of that church immediately after the First World War.

He had, like so many young men at that time, gone to the war. In his case as a Chaplain. He served in the trenches in France and Belgium. Gas was used as a weapon extensively, particularly chlorine gas – cheap easily produced but deadly, and often inflicting a very painful and lingering death. One time this chaplain went out with stretcher bearers to rescue wounded soldiers. During this time there was a chlorine gas attack. The chaplain, like all the troops had been issued with a gas mask and put it on. Then he found one of the wounded did not have a gas mask and taking his own one off he put it on the wounded man.

His lungs were so damaged by the gas that he was chronically ill during his time as minister at Lang Lang, and he died within a few years. What an incredible example of self-sacrificing Christian love; but what an awful thing the war was.

My point is that here was one (there were of course countless others) person who was devout, Christian, and of strong and commendable moral courage who believed it was right to go to war. This was also I believe the almost universal position of the mainstream denominations at that time

Let me come forward in time to an illustration of the beliefs of another minister this time in conflict with those of his denomination in the late 1960's.

The year was 1981. I was a young and keen curate and my vicar had let me take the funeral of an old lady I had been visiting in the local nursing home. A man introduced himself as the lady's son, he lived in another state and had come some distance for the funeral. After the service we got talking and this was the story he told:

He had been a young Presbyterian minister during the time of the Vietnam War. At one of their church's synods he had made a speech criticising the Australian government for introducing conscription and sending troops to fight alongside the Americans in this war.

During one of the breaks in the synod session a very senior minister confronted him, and poking him in the chest with a finger said: “Remember this day! This is the day your career in the Presbyterian Church ended!”

The man at the funeral, now much older looked wistfully past me into the distance and said: “and it was”.

So as late as 1960's it was an anathema to speak against a war in the Presbyterian church. As I recall, it would at least have been “unwelcome” in many other denominations. (A notable exception was high profile Methodist minister and director of the Wesley Mission in Sydney The Rev'd Dr. Sir Alan Walker who was a very outspoken critic of the war.)

Come forward just a few decades. The Anglican Church of which I am a member is now endemically anti-war. I suspect this is part of a swing to “Social Progressive” politics on the part of the people concerned. Hence it is still patchy, many are of this persuasion, some are not. However it has certainly been evident that a vocal bloc are anti-war and some are straight out anti-military – even to the extent of vilifying members of the clergy who are chaplains to the armed services. It is also a fact that very senior church people have criticised the Australian government for sending troops to fight in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In so short a space of time what the church expounds as “right” has reversed. I think that this is only one instance of a much more extensive problem: the chameleon ethical face of the church.

I think it happens when people's ideas and ideals come not (as they say – and quite likely themselves suppose) from the Bible but from political beliefs or cultural assumptions. These sources are (perhaps unconsciously) held more sacred than the Bible by the people concerned. The result is that the Bible is used (or misused) only to provide a legitimation for these already held beliefs rather than in its proper role to critique and mould them.

I am still struggling with how this can be overcome in order to utilise the ethical precepts of the Bible. One idea I am testing is that Aristotle holds the key. One of his cameos is of the complete man (Yes even Aristotle was a man of his times and thought to be complete one had to be male, Greek and a free citizen) We do not agree with him on that! However his ideal person was so imbued with moral sense that they not only did the right thing at all times but did so without internal struggle. No hand wringing or 'agonising over decisions' for them! They knew the right and they did it, whatever the cost.

I am toying with the idea that maybe this how the Bible should in large part work. That it can, under God, transform people into that sort of ideal condition that Aristotle glimpsed. Such people have their moral sense grounded on the absolute moral standard. Being build on this secure foundation their minds can work out solutions to ethical problems. On the other hand people who are dominated by what Biblical writers describe as our fallen human nature and the desires and values of “this world” will continue to see and use the Bible as a support for what they already want the answer to be, not as a source of inspiration!

But for the next few posts I will try to find what the Bible actually says about this moral issue. More of that next week!

Still Thinking !

Still Thinking !

I have been away from the blog for a couple of months, OK I got lazy!!!

Now I'm back … but there is still this niggling problem in my mind :

THE BIG PROBLEM

As Jeremiah said : “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (17:9)

The problem is us! Or more precisely two human traits ; First is the capacity of the human mind to interpret data to mean what the person wants to be the case; Second is our ability to fool ourselves that we are being righteous when in fact we are being devious deceitful and dishonest!

I was watching a TV documentary on an oil rig disaster in the gulf of Mexico which caused huge environmental damage and killed the crew on duty in the 'drilling shed' on the drilling platform. As one expert commented: the men did not want to die, but they were under extreme pressure to complete the job, so they really wanted the test they were conducting to show that it was safe to pull up the drill. But the test 'failed' so they tried another way of measuring if the iol well was going to leak. This way indicated that it was OK. But as the expert pointed out, the gauge readings they were looking at still showed a discrepancy that should have alerted them to the fact that something was wrong. (actually the second test only looked like a 'pass' because of another fault!).

So the crew interpreted the data in front of them – maybe quite unconsciously – how they wanted it to be rather than how it really was. In their case they paid for their mistake with their lives!

My point is, as I said way back in my last post, people – normal well meaning people – still often see what they want to see in the Bible. So how do we use it as the standard of ethics?

The second human trait compounds this problem. Again Jeremiah said it: “How can you say, “We are wise,for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (8:8)

I was one time, as a young engineer, sitting in on a test to see if certain machinery performed as specified. The manufacturer and the customer were running the test, we were the umpires. As our senior engineer quipped: “Sure figures can't lie – but liars can figure!” That quote stuck in my mind.

It is a matter of history that bad people have justified doing bad things with some catch phrase taken from the scriptures. It is also a matter of (even recent) history that churches have even in a single lifetime changed their dogma on what they say the Bible teaches on a particular subject. So once again how do we use the Bible as the standard of ethics?

I believe there must be an answer. I expect it is something along the lines that I was exploring in the last few blogs. But I think the problem is so big and so fundamental to the whole exploration of ethics that I am going to try to untangle a few strands of it!

I started on the Ten Commandments, and in particular the “No Murdering” one. I am still taking that topic, but doing something different with it.

I was thinking I could go through the Bible and extract a holistic paradigm on killing. Two problems: Firstly that soon turned out to be biting off much more than I could chew! Secondly as outlined above – who is to say that my interpretation is not just me making the data fit my pre-conceived ideas, or worse performing some clever sleight of hand to make people believe what I want them to believe!

So I am going to take two or three instances where this command has been the subject of controversy, and where the church has, in my lifetime, done a complete turn around. I am hoping this will sharpen our appetite for searching the Bible and help us to have the right sort of scepticism.

Next post I will tackle ….. Ah! That would be telling – tune in again to find out!

My Adventures with God - Winning Sue

Chapter 5

Winning Sue
It was ANZAC day 1972. (ANZAC day is 25th April and a public holiday in Australia) The senior youth fellowship was holding a picnic in the Blue Mountains. It was beautiful weather. There was a whole group of us, some were couples, some just part of the group.

Sue was there with John who was her boyfriend at that stage. As I recall I had again been doing a lot of talking to God about Sue. I think I had got to the stage of telling him that I was at the stage of giving up on her and trying to find a girlfriend elsewhere. All the previous year Sue and I had met in the second last carriage of the 7.30 train from Turramurra (I got on at Pymble, the next stop down the line) to go to university classes. We had always found things to talk about. We had met up for coffee once or twice during the day, and happily passed time together. I had been seeing much more of Sue than her boyfriend did! But he was still the boyfriend … I was just a university friend ... Now even that was gone because I had finished uni and was working so I only saw her at church – and then she was with John. So you can understand why I was complaining to God that I did not wish to continue like this.

So this particular picnic proceeded and we all sat in a big circle joking and generally enjoying being out together. “Lollygobble Bliss Bombs” were the latest confectionery craze. I can’t remember what they were even like, just that we were passing round packets and at one stage and that Sue who was looking particularly gorgeous was reading out the blurb on the packet to much communal laughter.

I was there on my own and driving my new car, a Toyota Corolla. As everyone was packing up Sue and John had some tiff and Sue asked if anyone could give her a lift home. I offered. When we pulled up outside her home I didn’t think about it – I wouldn’t have done it if I had stopped to think – I just leant over and kissed her. After that we were “going out”.

This time I was a bit smarter. I just worked out really nice places to take her and things to do! I suppose one would say it was a proper courtship. When I say “just” it actually took a bit of doing. That sort of planning did not come naturally or easily. I would spend the early part of the week thinking up somewhere to go and then 'phone up on Thursday night to formally ask her out.

In time Saturday night dates expanded to me picking Sue up from work early Saturday and Sunday afternoon. (at that time as well as studying medicine full time – and that is a very time consuming course – Sue was working eight hour shifts Saturday and Sunday as a nursing assistant, spending Saturday afternoon and evening with me, Sunday evening at church and the after church youth gathering, and then we would sit in the car outside her place until quite late. Sue slept through a few Monday morning lectures!

A year later we were engaged and November 1973 we were married. We have just celebrated our 40^th wedding anniversary, have four delightful children and really thank God for our wonderful marriage.

My Adventures with God : Back to Church

Back to Church

After a lapse of a couple of years I plucked up courage and went back to Turramurra Methodist church. This time it was social and peer contact that I was desperate for, so I went to the evening service where all the young people went.

The one thing I remember from the first service I attended: I noticed a girl. Yes it was the “across a crowded room” thing as in the song in old musical “South Pacific”. I though God said:“That’s the one you are going to marry”.

The second week I asked someone who she was. They said “Sue Wright”. Well it may be corny but I thought “Ah, my Miss Right”.

Well, being painfully shy it took several months for me to pluck up courage to ask her out on a date. But finally I did, she accepted, and we went out to dinner. As I recall it was the “early” sitting of the popular Pymble Eating House. We got on so well we talked through both sittings.

Before I go on let me say that now I know that if God gives a future goal or prediction one then prays “OK God, I’m in, what do you want me to do about it”. Sometimes of course he is going to make it happen and is just telling you the end so that you can hang in during the bumpy ride to get there. Other times he is letting you know what he would like you to accomplish by the normal methods yourself. I didn’t know that then. I didn’t know much about anything then – least of all, about women.

In my ignorance I simply told Sue that I was going to marry her. I couldn’t quite understand why she took it so badly! She had already agreed to go on a second date and being a person of her word she did, but she made it quite clear that it was to be the last date too!

Christmas holidays came and went. To my surprise when term started who should I see on the train but Sue. I was now in 4^th year engineering at Sydney University. Sue had been a first year at New South Wales University the year before but had just transferred to Sydney. It was a strange year. Sue was “going out” with a really nice boy from our church youth fellowship, John Derrin. Yet every day she was spending time with me on the train and having coffee with me at uni (I was on a cadet-ship and could afford to bribe her with free coffee). But you understand she wasn’t talking to me!

By the end of the year I was doing a lot of talking to God about it! Mostly along the lines that he had made a big mistake! I thought he kept saying that I would marry Sue; but from my viewpoint it did not look likely to happen. He also started saying I was going to be a minister.

By the start of next year (1972) I was working, it was fun, life was great, except no girlfriend and I was becoming convinced the “marry Sue” bit was a mistake

Meanwhile I had been helping out in the junior youth group at church, occasionally joining in the activities of the senior youth group – which were my peers, and studying for the local preacher’s exams.

The Methodist church was then (and still is) going through a “liberal” phase. The books I had to read for the local preacher’s exams were all by liberal theologians. These assured innocents like myself that, among other things, the “virgin birth” was a myth, Jesus was just a good man who taught wise things but didn’t mean to get himself killed, and certainly didn’t physically rise from the dead. His body was “still lying in some Palestinian grave” one author assured us. Prayer was “of course” just talking to your inner self. I did try to read what I could find of other theology books, but it seemed that the more letters the author had after their name (which I naively thought meant they really knew something) the more they doubted the Christianity I had been brought up to believe. Of course I know now that their doubt is their problem (possibly one should say “the sin that they have encouraged to control their lives instead of God”).

The other thing I noticed was this: in my younger days I had just read the Bible. Now I was being encouraged to read books about the bible. Soon it was a case of reading books instead of the bible. I thought I was learning more and more about Christianity when in fact I was being shepherded further and further away from it. It was the spiritual equivalent of someone leaving a lush well watered oasis and chasing a mirage further and further out into the parched sands of a desert.

One thing which helped me wake up to what was happening was being presented to the local preachers’ meeting of our circuit. These were crusty old saints who had no time for the liberal modernism of some of the ministers. One struck me to the quick, although he possibly never knew it. I don’t remember that he even said anything; I think he just looked at me. But in that look was … well something that shot me through. I think it was disdain, maybe pity, certainly it conveyed that I was, to him, a non-believer. It hurt, it was like a splinter under the skin that kept niggling at me. In the providence of God, it saved me.

To cut a long story short I did apply for the Methodist ministry. I was rejected, very kindly, on the psychological report that my diffident nature was better suited to dealing with machines than people. That was the second thing I had though God was saying to me that appeared to come to nothing. In a way that was a relief. I was “off the hook” so to speak and I could with a good conscience enjoy carving a career as an engineer, which was rather good fun.