tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post2775636029985424642..comments2023-09-01T02:58:45.146-06:00Comments on A Genuine Faith: Rodney Reeveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09807421344946408041noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-34918988820537880862007-05-02T12:25:00.000-06:002007-05-02T12:25:00.000-06:00Yes! Amber revealed your blog to me...greetings, a...Yes! Amber revealed your blog to me...greetings, and looking forward to the next post! ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-38062216563031154462007-05-01T10:36:00.000-06:002007-05-01T10:36:00.000-06:00As one with family at war, I am incredibly conflic...As one with family at war, I am incredibly conflicted. my cousin is in Baghdad right now. read his blog: fascinating stuff. www.xanga.com/eagledrew05<BR/><BR/>I am finding war to be increasingly difficult to stomach.<BR/><BR/>I don't want it to continue, but my background lends itself to violence. Americans are not necessarily violent themselves, but as a whole we are incredibly comfortable with violence as long as we are directly affected.<BR/><BR/>But we benefit from the violence our country inflicts on the world, particularly the economic violence we do to the third world.<BR/><BR/>But in response to Dr. Reeves' first statement, I would say that in America of all places we need pacifists. We are in a great position to effect change with our freedom.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Reeves,<BR/>Thanks for the great post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-35334338073827351822007-04-30T14:26:00.000-06:002007-04-30T14:26:00.000-06:00I can't answer your question, Danny. I guess, fro...I can't answer your question, Danny. I guess, from now on, I need to afix titles to the blogs.<BR/><BR/>Amber, glad to know others are finding a few of my comments useful for good discussion. Love to meet your family one day.<BR/><BR/>RRRRodney Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09807421344946408041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-42462954164622956122007-04-28T22:58:00.000-06:002007-04-28T22:58:00.000-06:00Dr. ReevesI just started a "my favorite posts" on ...Dr. Reeves<BR/><BR/>I just started a "my favorite posts" on my blog and wanted to add this one but I can't figure out how to because you don't use titles. Can anyone help?Danny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-32398360013463042912007-04-28T21:35:00.000-06:002007-04-28T21:35:00.000-06:00dr. reeves. the link my husband posted with this ...dr. reeves. the link my husband posted with this entry on pacifism has generated some good comments i thought you might like to read. his blog is lovetruthalways.blogspot.comamberburgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00790831150172956023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-31052288652431559162007-04-27T15:53:00.000-06:002007-04-27T15:53:00.000-06:00Thanks, Danny and Amber, for your comments. Good ...Thanks, Danny and Amber, for your comments. Good to hear from old friends.<BR/><BR/>RRRRodney Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09807421344946408041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-3600772422820099712007-04-27T11:26:00.000-06:002007-04-27T11:26:00.000-06:00dr reeves. i love this convo. thanks for posting t...dr reeves. i love this convo. thanks for posting this. my husband and i have linked your blog to ours and have mentioned it many times in posts...we enjoy and are challenged by your writings and thank you tremendously.<BR/>amber (gaddis) burgeramberburgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00790831150172956023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-91987709705422329862007-04-26T10:04:00.000-06:002007-04-26T10:04:00.000-06:00It's interesting to see that the slaughter of the ...It's interesting to see that the slaughter of the unborn never arose in this conversation. Its also interesting that if we choose political sides in America we have a choice between a government willing to use the sword to protect its citizens, and at the same time desires to protect the unborn, which is consistent. The other choice is a government that is willing to kill the unborn-arguably the weakest and poorest among us-and as well the infirm. I struggle mightily with the thought of pacifism in light of the named scriptures, but until I figure it all out, "love protects" is my filter. I read this posts a week ago and have given it much thought. Thank you Dr. Reeves.Danny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-86879900626708377652007-04-26T02:37:00.000-06:002007-04-26T02:37:00.000-06:00i like my steak rare.That's why i sometimes feel (...i like my steak rare.<BR/><BR/>That's why i sometimes feel (feeled?) convicted in Old Testament classes...BChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876981271110230978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-30061704638780669652007-04-26T02:35:00.000-06:002007-04-26T02:35:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.BChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876981271110230978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-48612903232599025652007-04-24T20:54:00.000-06:002007-04-24T20:54:00.000-06:00We were fighting? :) I never thought you came off ...We were fighting? :) I never thought you came off that way. As a matter of fact, you made it clear that you did not condone such actions or attitudes several times. You have great insight.<BR/><BR/>Grace.Michael Gilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079643017537005996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-34302223833536724752007-04-24T18:51:00.000-06:002007-04-24T18:51:00.000-06:00I hardly feel like we're fighting anymore, but I d...I hardly feel like we're fighting anymore, but I do want to "defend" myself by saying I never presumed to say that fighting as a physical acts of violence or retaliation are ever appropriate.matt gallionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761088685963884199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-21073850180034457842007-04-24T16:25:00.000-06:002007-04-24T16:25:00.000-06:00Matt:I absolutely agree with you. So many times pe...Matt:<BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree with you. So many times people use prayer and even, dare I say, their money as a cop-out. “Well, I’ll just pray for them and throw a little at the offering plate and that’ll make everything ok.” At least, that clears their end of the bargain they think. However, resurrection faith should never be an excuse to sit apathetically but instead it should always be a motive to move without fear. The death and resurrection of Christ our Lord should always be seen in view of the rest of his life. His entire life was a crucifixion culminating at the cross. We are called to the same life. I believe that when the Spirit descends, it gives us the power to live such a life. This does not look like retaliation; we’ve already established that. However, I also don’t believe it looks like defending ourselves or others for that matter. Again, Jesus never lashed out against his enemies. On the road to his crucifixion (his life as crucified) he did heal and touch those who were oppressed by that injustice, the needy. Point is: we as Followers are never called to fight injustice but to love those who are under it by seeing to their needs, and even, when the time has come, to give up our lives in their place. Injustice then cannot kill us since we give it up freely like our Lord. Apathetic “Little Christs” wouldn’t do this. It’s by living the “crucifixion” that we defeat the evil powers in the world, right from under their noses. Taking care of injustice is God’s business. Taking care of those hurt by injustice is ours by the power of God.<BR/><BR/>It was once said that Philosophy is like chasing a black cat in a dark room that isn’t there. Lord, help us to see in the dark until that day when we will see clearly!Michael Gilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079643017537005996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-28234338465047569162007-04-24T15:28:00.000-06:002007-04-24T15:28:00.000-06:00The difficulty for me is not the issue of sufferin...The difficulty for me is not the issue of suffering in my own life. It's not apathy to choose not to retaliate on one's own behalf. It is apathetic to sit silently and watch others suffer. I don't condone war at all. I don't believe its ever right to kill those we are commanded to love. I believe every form of killing is absolutely wrong. We cannot take another's life. Even more so, when my life will act as a suitable sacrifice for the sake of another, then so be it (I boldly proclaim from my safe bedroom).<BR/><BR/>But it is precisely because of resurrection faith that I can't justify letting the poor and oppressed remain in poverty and oppression. Jesus came to deliver these people, did he not? How can we who are rich and fat, so to speak, say that those in the world who suffer will just have to suffer. "Heck, we should envy them for their suffering!" we say. "We don't get to suffer here, and suffering is the way of the cross, isn't it?!"<BR/><BR/>The problem with this is that Jesus did not come to passively suffer and die. He was killed exactly because he chose to do something about the injustice he saw. Jesus was proactive. He came and died for the sake of liberating the poor and oppressed. Suffering for religion's sake forgets this. If we are to suffer, it is to be for our mission of restoration to the poor and oppressed. Because of this, even those poor and oppressed don't have to submit to their unfortunate lot in life. We can make a difference in our world.<BR/><BR/>Now, I don't doubt the power of prayer, nor do I discourage the regular practice thereof. It is the primary way to affect the will of God on Earth. Even the life of Christ reveals that fact. But is that all he did?<BR/><BR/>I believe we have a responsibility to the needy in this world. We must pray for them, as Michael suggests, of course. Things will happen because of this, needless to say. But how often are we guilty of using that as a cop-out? Especially when we find out that Jesus didn't promote the violence of which our government and our culture are so rampantly guilty. But there are ways to demand a higher value of life without violence, especially in a democracy where our voices matter.<BR/><BR/>I do believe Paul was very apolitical. I also believed he lived in a completely form of government which is miles in distinction from our own. Also, Paul used his government whenever it was beneficial to the cause. How much more potential do we have in our world to do likewise?<BR/><BR/>Granted, there is no standard system for answering these questions. Regardless, we must analyze every situation using all of the revelation of God and the logical capabilities God has given to us as humans. (Holy cow! I think I just became a fan of philosophy, Dr. Reeves! What happened to me?!)matt gallionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761088685963884199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-2700752117161075852007-04-24T11:02:00.000-06:002007-04-24T11:02:00.000-06:00I would agree that such statements seem apathetic,...I would agree that such statements seem apathetic, but only in the world’s eyes. What the world deems important might be just the opposite in view of a resurrection faith. Yes, it would be VERY difficult to hold such views in the face of such horrible injustice as that which was brought during the Holocaust. However, isn’t it in the midst of storms that faith is made? It’s easy to believe in non-retaliation when we, as Americans, aren’t being oppressed. It’s true faith to act upon it, even in the midst of the greatest of injustices. Matt, what you might see as apathy to injustice, I would argue is true faith when acted out because that’s what our Lord did. He protected us from the greatest of all injustices by submitting himself to death, even death on a cross. He did not outwardly fight. He trusted the Father. Also, as for friends and family, aren’t our brothers and sisters all over the world (i.e. China, India, Iraq) being “kidnapped” and oppressed everyday? Aren’t they to mean more than our biological ties? (Matt 12.5; Lk 14.26) We don’t fight for them. The Spirit falls when we (corporate) pray.Michael Gilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079643017537005996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-47923530419621723512007-04-24T10:11:00.000-06:002007-04-24T10:11:00.000-06:00what bothers me about michael's comment is the app...what bothers me about michael's comment is the apparent apathy towards injustice. What if Hitler kidnapped your friends or family? Would it be so easy to simply submit and wait for God's hand to strike him down? Surely Bonhoeffer wrestled with this.<BR/><BR/>How can we call that love for the neighbor? It seems a great act of respect for God, but also seems completely unloving to others. It makes one wonder if love for God can be done without the other.matt gallionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761088685963884199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-57306633217704402682007-04-24T07:59:00.000-06:002007-04-24T07:59:00.000-06:00I prefer a bit less "moo" in my steaks, but point ...I prefer a bit less "moo" in my steaks, but point taken.<BR/><BR/>That reminds me of Greek-class barbecues and a certain professor playing/singing Elton John songs.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533252542115553519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-57005002013971956992007-04-24T01:23:00.000-06:002007-04-24T01:23:00.000-06:00It seems that matters of the faith are always hard...It seems that matters of the faith are always hard to resolve, even within oneself, but nonetheless we are held accountable to them. Love does not look like full acceptance. (Gal. 6.1-3) When other brothers and sisters stumble we are called to embrace them, but within the context of restoring them and nursing them like a broken bone. Who are we to judge? “You shall know them by their fruits.” This is limited of course, but we cannot forget Luke’s woes. I believe the stress is always placed then not on what we necessarily do right, but what we do when we do wrong. No one can live as Jesus did fully, but thank God we have him to speak in our name when the court is drawn into session. However, it cheapens grace to just stop there. We are to repent and live right like we were first meant to. We give up everything.<BR/><BR/>I liked what you said, Dr. Reeves, about protecting. That’s really what violence (and all the nuances therein) is all about, isn’t it? (And politics.) What do we have to fear or loose when we give it all away and trust in a God who says it is his to avenge and his alone? Perhaps it questions his sovereignty when we try to “fix” things ourselves. Lastly, as to the mention about Hitler awhile ago, God took care of him, didn’t he? And not through the hands of the church either.Michael Gilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079643017537005996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-10623905391132280662007-04-23T21:24:00.000-06:002007-04-23T21:24:00.000-06:00wow. i should not be allowed near computers at 7....wow. i should not be allowed near computers at 7.06 am. did anybody else notice that i used the word "feeled"?matt gallionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761088685963884199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-8682619332276169142007-04-23T18:25:00.000-06:002007-04-23T18:25:00.000-06:00Dr. Reeves,With regards to Paul and his ministry (...Dr. Reeves,<BR/><BR/>With regards to Paul and his ministry (and, I think, to Jesus and HIS ministry), i think you make a good point - we must pursue Christ above all and to the exclusion of all else. But I think that we, very much like Jesus and Paul, live among peoples who have conflated religion with earthly/worldly politics. If we are to act within our own faith communities, then will we not need to address issues of American citizenship vs. Kingdom citizenship within those same communities?<BR/><BR/>I think we see Paul doing this all the time, especially (as you've pointed out) in Romans and Philippians (and Colossians!). Clearly the Revelator is dealing extensively with this issue, and Jesus himself has to deal with his own unique form of it (render unto Caesar, the Legion, etc.)<BR/><BR/>and regardless of whether we are the powerful or the oppressed (as Tom indicated, we can still be both , even in America), should we not still seek to cultivate the same attitude (that was in Christ Jesus)? What characterizes us as pacifist... our position as victim or oppressor, or the mind we cultivate within ourselves?<BR/><BR/>in any case, I think you're right - though we're quibbling over semantics, I think we're ending up in the same place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-6030639551631787922007-04-23T15:34:00.000-06:002007-04-23T15:34:00.000-06:00Jon,Yes, the topic of the council was the Mosaic c...Jon,<BR/><BR/>Yes, the topic of the council was the Mosaic covenant, i.e., circumcision. The decision made by the council, however, was to defer to the Noahidic covenant (something we don't keep--neither did Paul!).<BR/><BR/>I like my steak medium.<BR/><BR/>RRRRodney Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09807421344946408041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-41599232409523736542007-04-23T15:29:00.000-06:002007-04-23T15:29:00.000-06:00Dr. Reeves,In Acts 15, the Mosaic Covenant was the...Dr. Reeves,<BR/><BR/>In <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=acts+15§ion=0&version=nas&language=en" REL="nofollow">Acts 15</A>, the Mosaic Covenant was the topic of debate, not Noah's. Also note that the apostles and elders finally decide that it is not good to eat blood, which happens to be in the Noahic covenant. In fact, as I read it, it seems to me that God is still upholding all of the conditions of His covenant with Noah, even up to the present day. Of course, Jesus fulfilled the law, and I don't wish to argue otherwise. I also don't want to espouse a literal reading/application of the OT as you mention. It just seems to me that God's covenant with Noah precedes Moses (i.e. "the law"), and perhaps because of that fact (?) God is still honoring it. Even if He is not, I still think the principle in <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+9%3A6§ion=0&version=nas&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=9&NavCurrentChapter=9" REL="nofollow">Genesis 9:6</A> is a valid one. (Given my view of justice, you can see why I would think this way.) You have given an excellent critique, though--one I will have to ponder more thoroughly. Thank you.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533252542115553519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-75575041982719033812007-04-23T13:48:00.000-06:002007-04-23T13:48:00.000-06:00Jon, Darryl, Michael, Matt, and Tom,Thanks for you...Jon, Darryl, Michael, Matt, and Tom,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your insightful comments. I'll start by saying I think Jon is right: the tension is what matters. Obviously, we're not going to "settle" the issue (politics would make us "choose" one side or the other--but life is too messy for such a binary view of things).<BR/><BR/>Darryl, yes, I think a follower of Jesus could be a soldier/policewoman or a politician, but she won't be very good at it. I think Christians would make great soldiers and politicians--the world wouldn't like it, though. Rom. 13 must be read in light of 12. Submission to the Roman Empire is the way we overcome evil (Roman Empire) with good (ultimate submission to Christ, Rom. 13:10ff).<BR/><BR/>Jon, I don't believe we're under the Noahide laws (even though James and the boys tried to enforce them, Acts 15). To me, Christ fulfilled every promise, every covenant. So, to be "in Christ" is my only covenant obligation. As soon as we make room for another covenant, I think we've opened the door for Luther's "two swords" or (even more dangerous)a literal reading/application of OT texts (America = Israel; when, in reality, a literal interpretation of the OT leads to Judaism, exclusively). Your "personal" vs. "corporate" application of justice reminds me of Niebuhr--an idea I've flirted with adopting, but, alas, I can't (it seems like we always end up choosing the kingdom of men over the kingdom of God).<BR/><BR/>I think Michael makes a good point: When Paul played the "citizenship" card, was that the best he could do? By the time he wrote Philippians (as Darryl suggested), he sees his heavenly citizenship as mutually exclusive to his Roman citizenship (something the Roman colony of Philippi was wrestling with). Is this an example where Paul has "progressed" in his thinking?<BR/><BR/>We should all heed Matt's warning: making enemies because of our "stand" for Christ. No doubt. We will have enemies. The question is: how do we see them? As opponents who must be conquered, or as "lost sheep" who need reclamation? I can't count the times I've "lost my way" and God has reclaimed me, brought me back from my selfish ways. I want to WIN the argument. Jesus wins by dying. I always get concerned when people in power wield their power as acts of "stewardship." Here's the question: what are we trying to protect? I am amazed at how quickly I can justify my sin. So, I shouldn't be surprised when I hear people justify "our government" when it protects our interests.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Tom makes a good point. We are limiting ourselves when we reduce talk about pacifism to militaristic terms. Remember, Jesus taught about the violence of serial adultery as well.<BR/><BR/>Anybody want to talk about that?<BR/><BR/>RRRRodney Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09807421344946408041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-58400205072048915962007-04-23T10:19:00.000-06:002007-04-23T10:19:00.000-06:00Darryl,I think that you have come to the crux of t...Darryl,<BR/><BR/>I think that you have come to the crux of the issue. Yet another tension in life about which Christians must grapple. This is a good thing.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533252542115553519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37430348.post-26557592694963644432007-04-23T10:16:00.000-06:002007-04-23T10:16:00.000-06:00I think maybe part of our problem in thinking abou...I think maybe part of our problem in thinking about this issue is that we restrict pacifism to either 1. the subject of war OR 2. a response to any act of physical violence. <BR/><BR/>What if pacifism is dealing with ALL acts of violence - not just the physical ones. <BR/><BR/>Cannot mental abuse (often by men to women), ideological oppression (Communism in the Former Soviet Union), and theological manipulations (like can be seen throughout the SBC) be considered acts of violence when they are exerted against the will of another person? <BR/><BR/>If this is the case, then pacifism on this level is still possible even if one is a member of the dominant culture. <BR/><BR/>If violence is the exertion of one's will on another person without their consent, and for the the prosperity of the actor, then pacifism is possible on this kind of level - even when physical violence is not involved. <BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts...they may not actually be going anywhere important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com