ADBC: 07 – Limits on God? Justified Violence?

This is part of an ongoing blog conversation with my brother, David. Here’s the premise.

Previously in the conversation: David essentially told me to come back with a better way of asking the question about racism – which is fair enough. He also gave a rather intriguing perspective on the place for hate. That in itself is worth going to read for yourself, so, go read it for yourself!

There was a follow-up that David had in regard to the answer I gave about the sinner and the sin.

Follow-up: On what basis do you come to the conclusion that you should love everyone? I ask this because the categories you gave don’t include everyone. It doesn’t include, for example, those who are committed to and love evil.

As you rightly point out I don’t necessarily have categories for those who are committed to and love evil. It’s interesting you ask this follow-up because over the week I was reading Psalm 139 where among other things the psalmist expresses an active hatred of those that God hates. I’m aware that there are other areas where psalmists express a desire for those who are enemies of God or even just enemies of the king are treated in ways that wouldn’t quite fit in someone’s picture of loving. You refer in your piece to having an active detesting of those who act in ways that somewhat merit such treatment. I don’t think it’s my duty to behave the same to all people. Plus to be fair, I can only treat people as God allows me to do by His Spirit, that’s not the same in all cases, to be fair.

As is now the norm, David asked me a couple of questions:

Q: Can God do absolutely anything? If not then do limits mean God is not God? Explain

The question has deliberately been restated to give away my position on the initial question – namely that I do not believe God can do absolutely anything. Indeed, I’m not sure where we get the idea that God as He reveals Himself should be someone who can do absolutely anything. I remember a conversation I had about 27 years ago. Someone asked a philosophical question about the encounter of the unstoppable force and the immovable object. I remember being captured by that question for a long time and it having a lot to do with why I chose theology for A-level as well as philosophy as part of the degree I took.

The thing about the question, though, is that it looks to seek to shape the definition of God on my terms and conditions as though God has to fit my parameters. Which, when you consider the concept of God – especially from my Christian perspective – is ludicrous. All right, all good, all wise God, creator of the universe is able to define Himself as He pleases. Really, who am I to challenge how God reveals Himself as one who cannot lie or sin or do the illogical? I make no claim to be an expert on all the attributes of God, but what I do know about Him is that by Him being God it’s no issue for there to be so-called limitations.

Q: Is there ever a need for violence or aggressive, physically or psychically damaging and/or lethal action? Explain your response

Intriguing question for the following reason. My church upbringing held something of a ‘pacifist’ opinion. It was a somewhat nominal position giving the impression that church position on war was to oppose all military conflict. The nominally held position gave the impression that the church did not support violent or aggressive actions at all. There might have been the allowance for self-defence as such, but other than that there was an adverse reaction morally to acts of violence and aggression.

That was the upbringing I had and it really was nominal. It wasn’t explored in any degree really and the biblical basis for it was not really rigorously explored. Which, of course, is fascinating when you read throughout scripture violence and aggressive actions that would certainly be classed as damaging and lethal. Indeed when looking at what God considers to be justice when it comes to things like breaking the law the consequences of that was often the requirement for lethal action. On that level there is the justification of lethal action.

Are there any other circumstances in which there is a need for violence or aggressive damaging and/or lethal action? It’s difficult for me to justify it. I know that there’s this thing of having an armed force which by its definition is kinda there to conduct violently aggressive actions. If we went with the whole need for the statecraft or even the need to protect your stuff there might be a time when exercising force of a violent kind is somewhat justified.

But you see, because I come from a view of Jesus that’s painting a picture of doing away with that when peace is truly established and righteousness sees people engaging with each other in harmonising ways rather than aggravating and violent ways it leads me to the perspective of looking to refrain that course of action wherever possible.

Now I say that still with the belief that justice as far as God is concerned will see the departure of those who continue to rebel against His rule and pollute the planet with their unrighteousness.

---

So, my brother, those are my responses to your questions. You know say, you’re free to offer your response to the responses if you want. As you do that, however, answer me this, David:

Q – As you observe the mainstream take on racism what are your thoughts on it? Is this a dangerous problem for the sake of society?

Q – What, in your view, is equality when referred to in society? Is this a quality that’s important to pursue for a just and righteous society?

In the meantime, thanks for this opportunity dear brother, thanks.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden