Trying to see straight...

Doug Wilson wrote this out at his Blog and Mablog. He talks of making categorical mistakes which I think is still a struggle of mine all over the place. The Churches I grew up in tended to flatten everything out as he would say. (too much focus on inward piety and misunderstanding of our relationship to the world around us?) It touches nicely with the biblical self defense theme that we must understand correctly. Also his distinction with the attitude for our journey as compared to what we expect when we arrive, is desperately needed today. Take the link and read the whole thing, good stuff. A lot of his material has helped me to see how heavy the tint is on my glasses. I finish an article like this and I must ask the Lord, "what else is kitty whompus?"

How Pacifism Protects War Doug Wilson

…..At the heart of the full biblical ethic is this fundamental attitude:
"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:20-21).

But there is an easy mistake to make here, and it is the result of switching terms halfway through the discussion. "Do not return evil for evil" is not a nonviolent ethic, but rather a righteous ethic. If violence and evil were synonyms, then to return violence for evil would be disobedience. But some violence is righteous, as when God does it, or when men deputized by Him use it. And if nonviolence were synonymous with righteousness, then perhaps we could reason our way to the position that violence is excluded by the command not to return evil for evil. But it isn't -- there are many situations in which a refusal to use violence would be unrighteous.

The peaceful nature of the destination does not determine the ethic for the journey. The law of God determines the ethic for the journey. Until we get there, we are to do as we are told. We are not to do as we think we will be doing when we get there. There will be no sex as we know it in the resurrection -- that does not make sexual love in marriage now "anti-Trinitarian." The destination is one thing, and the journey another. The old spiritual puts it well, "Gonna lay down my sword and shield, down by the riverside." The fact that every believing heart longs for the day when we will lay down sword and shield is actually grounds for holding more tightly to both of them now.

But of course, there is a clinging to the weapons of war that is idolatrous and unbelieving. So what else is new? Unbelief does that with all sorts of things. Sex, wine, comfort, food, or guns -- the idolatrous use of a created thing does not outlaw the obedient use of that same thing.

If an intruder came into my home, and I fought him off, it would be beside the point to say something like, "You know, the Bible says not to return evil for evil." I would reply, "That's right. That's why I didn't return evil for evil.

With regard to the intruder, I returned unrighteous violence with righteous violence. Had I done nothing, that would have been evil. I would have been returning all the good my wife has done for me with the evil of cowardice. Returning evil for evil would have been bad. But I am sure you would agree that returning evil for good would have been worse."……