Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Turn the Other Cheek

Matthew 5:38-40, 43-44:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

There are a few passages of scripture that are often used to to argue that Christians should not judge others. Today I am looking at the first, which is Christ’s teaching that we should “turn the other cheek.”

We all have a basic sense of justice within us that when a person insults us we want to insult them back, and when they strike us we want to strike them back. But Christ compelled his followers to suppress that natural spirit of retaliation, and instead invite another rebuke from them! This is extraordinary, and it certainly asks a great deal of every disciple, but we should note that there are certain requirements attributed to this sermon that Jesus never actually called for:

  1. Nowhere does Christ say that the offender is to be absolved of their guilt. Turning the other cheek is not the same as justifying what the other person has done. If anything, our invitation to be struck again doubly condemns the offender! Also, note that while verse 44 calls on us to love, bless, pray for, and do good to those that harm us, Christ does not ever say for us to approve, justify, or defend their crimes. We can both love our enemy and turn the other cheek, while still maintaining that their behavior is wrong.
  2. Christ gives examples of how we would accept relatively light forms of physical violence and the loss of an article of clothing. These are both small infractions, and both related to the loss or harm of earthly, physical things. It is not right to take this instruction and apply it to wrongs of a greater severity, such as another person trying to kill you and your family, or of a different type, such as another person trying to spread lies in your community. Nothing in this passage suggests that there is never a time to defend or push back.
  3. In each example, Christ is only talking about the disciple accepting a personal slight. There is a great difference between allowing wrongs to be perpetrated against the self and allowing wrongs to be perpetrated against others. Christ does not say, “whosoever shall smite your child upon the cheek, turn to him your other child’s also!” That would be passivity to the point of cruelty to the innocent. We do not only refute the evil of the world for our own sake, but for the protection of the weak and the innocent also.

What Christ teaches in these verses has real weight and meaning, and calls for a real change in his followers. But we should limit the lessons that we take from this to the ones that were actually intended, and not mis-attribute other lessons upon it as well. Christ is calling us to do something very hard, but only on a personal level and for particular sorts of offense. Nowhere in these verses does Christ say that we should allow others to take every liberty against our person, or call evil good, or cease to preach repentance to the wicked, or fail to protect the innocent. We can do all of those things while still being totally consistent with the instruction to turn the other cheek.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- God’s Judgment

The Old Testament gives accounts of the people of Israel being an extension of the Lord to bring judgment and condemnation upon the pagan nations of Canaan. It also gives accounts of them going to war when not as an extension of the Lord, and suffering disastrous results.

As an example of the first we have God instructing the Israelites to circle the city of Jericho, following a very precise ritual that resulted in the walls of the city collapsing to the ground. The Israelites charged in and won a tremendous victory that day. As an example of the second we have the Israelites going up to battle with the Philistines with the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 4. God had not commanded them to go up to this fight, and as a result Israel lost 30,000 footmen, were forced to retreat, and the Ark of the Covenant was lost to their enemies.

I think in these opposing examples there is a lesson for when we should battle with the enemies of the church, and when we should hold our peace. We must always remember that we are the foot-soldiers and God is the general. This is His fight to fight. It is up to Him to decide when the field is right for battle and when it isn’t. The choice is His, not ours. Our duty is simply to obey. In both of the stories, the Israelites were willing to fight the Lord’s enemies, the difference was that the time to do so was right in the first instance, and not in the second.

As you see the enemies of God’s kingdom throwing their insults and barbs at the walls of the church, claiming victories and taking souls as they go, you may feel a great desire to leap into the fray, tearing them down in similar manner. But it is imperative to ask yourself, has God actually called you to fight that fight? And has He called you to fight that fight right now?

Having the courage and the desire to fight for God’s kingdom is, in-and-of-itself, a good thing, but it must be bounded by God’s will for when and how. Wage the right war when the time is right to do so, and in the meantime hold the line and be faithful.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Question

Jesus showed mercy to the adulterous woman, but he also gave punishment to moneychangers at the temple when he drove them out with a whip.

Jesus besought forgiveness for the very men that carried out his execution, yet he also assured the pharisees that they would not be able to “escape the damnation of hell.”

Jesus besought his followers to turn the other cheek, but he also commanded the nation of Israel to destroy their enemies in the land of Canaan.

In short, at times Christ called for mercy, forgiveness, and patience with sinners and oppressors, while at other times he called for the punishment and condemnation.

The purpose of this study is to understand when we are to be the Lord’s balm and when to be His sword? When are we to be patient and longsuffering, and when are we to stand with boldness against evil? When are we to be a vessel of mercy, and when of justice?

In my following posts I will seek to answer these questions by looking at several examples in the scriptures, particularly of Christ, that speak to both sides. It is not my intention to argue for one side over another, but only to understand how to do what is right, serving God in either fashion according to His will and dictates.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Those Who Cannot Do, Deconstruct

The Human Nature)

It is in our human nature to advance and improve. We are never content with the accomplishments of the past, we always seek to be better and better. We are a race of inventors and innovators, creators and pioneers. Entirely new branches of science, technology, medicine, and mathematics are constantly being opened, and old branches pushed further than ever before.

This is a divine characteristic within us, linked to our need for personal self improvement. It shows how our hearts and minds are constantly pulled toward the ideal. We seek perfection in all its forms, and that gives us the power to do brave, new things. Just as our pioneering spirit leads us to invent life-saving methods, it leads us to engage in soul-saving repentance. This is unquestionably a good thing, and a clear sign of our divine heritage.

But what happens when we lack the innovation to improve on what has already been done, but retain the desire to advance something new?

Deconstruction in Place of Innovation)

Ever since the social sciences began, one truth has emerged above all others: people do their best when they are raised in the traditional, nuclear family.

When a society has each of its children raised by a devoted father and mother, there is less crime, less mental illness, less depression, less suicide, and less drug use. When children have a devoted father and mother they report greater happiness, participate more in their society, obtain higher levels of education, earn more money, give more to charity, and live longer, healthier lives. Society settled on the traditional, nuclear family many years ago, and there simply has never been a better system ever found.

If every alternative strategy for raising humanity has fallen short, then one would think that continued research would be focused on how to strengthen this family unit. How can we better support the working father and the nurturing mother? How can we better train the raising generation to prepare themselves for those roles? How can we remove the temptations and obstacles that lead people to choose harmful alternatives? How can we shore up the children who lose one of their parent-pillars due to some tragedy?

Remarkably, though, those are not the sort of questions that the social pundits of today tend to focus their energy on. In spite of all evidence against it, social academia continues proposing ways to subvert, twist, and fully replace the ideal family. They push for alterations to laws and social norms, even though those changes have no evidence of yielding positive results. They criticize the standards and principles that have stood for years, even when those standards demonstrably lead to a better quality of life for everyone involved.

A society that achieves the pinnacle has the unfortunate tendency to adulterate its adventurous spirit and deconstruct that ideal, crippling and breaking it simply for the sake of having a project to work on, never mind if that project destroys millions of lives along the way! Those that lack the skill to build and improve occupy themselves with tearing apart!

The Ease of Destruction)

And, unfortunately, the rule of the universe is that destruction is always easier than construction. Chaos comes more easily than order. Toppling is always faster than stacking, scattering easier than gathering, breaking more accessible than creating. Even a minority in a short period of time can undo what a majority took a very long while to accomplish. If current trends continue, the collapse of the most basic social unit will occur, and it will be many generations of horror before that good thing can be built back again, if ever at all.

In short, we have very good reason to be very fierce about promoting and protecting the traditional nuclear family, and in renouncing and destroying every bastardized alternative.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Reasons for Disbelief- The Shattered View

I have published several posts exploring different reasons why people refuse to live by faith, or believe in the gospel, or accept God as their father and creator. I spoke of people who renounce God due to passive skepticism, or having a hierarchy of authority that is incompatible with God, or possessing an instinct to believe every idea from other people, or being swayed by close relationships, or having model of the world that refutes the need for a Creator.

Through all of these varied reasons, though, I think there is one shared core, something that I started to describe with my last post, and today I will summarize my series by laying out that common theme in greater detail.

Breaking Reality)

The core reason why most people refuse faith is that, on a fundamental level, they are converted to a worldview that is incompatible with the reality of God. Their current worldview might make them try to justify their sins, depend on a relationship with someone who is in opposition to God, or fear being damned if they give up on old ideals. Most of us find things that we rely on to make sense of the world and cope with our fears. And because we are human, we tend to choose imperfect things that are not God.

In short, accepting God often means shattering our entire conception of reality and personal safety. It means cutting out the foundation with nothing more than the hope that there will be a God who catches us as we fall.

There are many who first profess not to believe in God with an attitude of calm rationality, but who then devolve into hysterical, emotional outbursts when faced with a well-reasoned argument for God that they do not have a refutation for. This is a fear-based reaction, a survival mechanism to scare away the proselytizer who is pulling apart the disbeliever’s entire universe. The fact is, most people don’t care what the argument for God is. They might have pretended to have rejected Him for intellectual reasons, but most of them actually have an emotional reason for not surrendering to Him. You’re never going to be able to reason someone into abandoning a position that they are still using for a crutch.

All of the reasons for disbelief that I have given in this series come down to these elements of fear and coping in one way or another. When people see the evidence for God, they are able to work ahead and intuit how an admission of His reality might require them to stop relying on old superstitions, or end certain relationships, or do the hard work of investigating the truth, or stop listening to certain authorities. For most people, these are massive, life-changing alterations, and they are scary. This is why those who proselytize are to do so in a spirit of understanding and love, having great reverence and respect for the great undertaking they are inviting people to.

But the hardness of the way is in no way a justification for not following it. For any of us who are on the precipice of breaking a false worldview, may we be reassured by the knowledge that we were born to do great and heroic things, the greatest and most heroic of which may very well be smashing this carefully-crafted reality, casting aside the crutches that we have always depended upon, and taking a leap of faith into the unseen and unknown!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Reasons for Disbelief- Models of Reality

Understanding the World)

Mankind has always had the desire to understand the world around us. Indeed, the desire to comprehend our reality seems to be as great as our desire to know what is morally right. Long before our modern conception of the scientific method, people would try to explain life and death, disease, the changing seasons, and the different elements of nature by telling stories of unseen cosmic forces. Even with the advent of the scientific method started to take hold, people would still give naïve, pseudo-scientific explanations for the world, such as the medical descriptions of the four humours of the body.

Because of our great hunger to understand ourselves and the world we inhabit, we tend not to accept a belief system that does not fit with our perception of reality. To believe in God we have to believe that He is the cause of the world as we see it today. Conversely, if we do not see God as the cause of the world, then we do not feel it right to believe in Him. As a result, just as the scientific explanation for the world has parted itself from intelligent design, the general population has increasingly parted ways with their spiritual beliefs.

Limitations of Our Models)

Of course, no model for understanding the universe is complete. Much as the die-hard atheist might have us believe otherwise, we have no explanation for why the universe is comprised of an ordered nature, or how the first proteins could have formed by random chance. This is a topic of such depth and breadth that I won’t attempt to cover it here, but just know that the idea that the building blocks of life randomly collided together without any intelligent intervention has serious mathematical problems. The odds against such an occurrence are astronomical beyond belief, and require assumptions that go against the tenets of natural selection. Thus, the scientific explanation is actually at war with itself in trying to model these developments.

But most devotees of science don’t delve that deep into their own subject. They see clear, natural explanations for the realities that are immediately at hand, such as for how a ball drops, and a balloon rises, and ice melts, and fire consumes wood, and they are content to say that because everything they see is accounted for, there is no need for a God. So long as the edifice looks complete around us, we tend to not care whether there’s a rational foundation down below.

The Resistance to Change)

And there is something about this which we can abstract into a general rule for disbelief. Materialists will passionately reject rational, scientifically-backed criticisms of their materialistic beliefs because they are afraid of having their conception of reality upended. They might claim all sorts of rational superiority, but when they face a rational argument that they cannot refute, many of them will become emotional and openly hostile. Ironically, it is just the same when a theist who does not actually understand his doctrine has the flaws in his faith pointed out as well. In both cases, what is being challenged is the person’s core desire to hold to a model for the universe, an intense fear of what would happen if they let that model go.

And that basic human instinct is true whether we are talking about scientific materialists, or disciples of social opinion, or a theist that refuses to consider a different doctrine, or any other sort of person that dismisses the true God out of hand, even in the face of rational arguments. People of all sorts have concocted their personal model of the world, and adopting a more divine belief system will always break that model to one degree or another.

As such, those who proselytize Christ’s gospel should have reverence for the fact that when they ask to share a message, really they are asking to shatter that other person’s entire view of reality! Yes, it is a flawed reality, and it would be replaced with something better, but it’s understandable why the other person is so hesitant and unsure. Their reluctance is understandable, and a great deal of love and support is usually necessary for them to make the transition.

Reason #5 for Disbelief is that we have a previously-established model of reality that doesn’t allow for Him. We would have to shatter our existence in order to make way for His existence, and that prospect terrifies us.