How far do we take 'loving our enemies'?

[PaulDA]

A spin off from the U2 thread:
-------------------------------------------------------
I would please like a solid answer to this from anyone.
Christians who always talk about "loving our enemies" can never answer this.
There is nothing wrong with loving our enemies. But how far do we take it? Do we let our enemies attack and kill us because we are to love them?
If a fiend breaks into my house am I supposed to let him rape my daughter and wife and let him kill all of us because Jesus didn't lift a hand against the Roman soldiers in the garden of Getseneme? Where do we draw the line from "loving our enemies and giving them our shirt if they steal our coat" to protecting ourselves, our family and our country with lethal force if necessary?

 

[Brenden]

There is nothing wrong with loving our enemies. But how far do we take it? Do we let our enemies attack and kill us because we are to love them?

Is letting someone kill you going to be the most loving thing you can do for them in that situation?

If a fiend breaks into my house am I supposed to let him rape my daughter and wife and let him kill all of us because Jesus didn't lift a hand against the Roman soldiers in the garden of Gethsemene?

No, because Jesus was supposed to die. You have a resposibility to protect your family (which is good stewardship of what God gave you).

Where do we draw the line from "loving our enemies and giving them our shirt if they steal our coat" to protecting ourselves, our family and our country with lethal force if necessary?

If it's in the protection of others, that's a good reason to use force, even lethal force. Even sometimes it may be the best thing for the attacker.

[PaulDA]

Ok, i can understand what you are saying about Jesus' turning the other cheek when the Roman soldiers arrested Him and when he was beaten and crucified, because it had a purpose.

However, back to my other point. What about when Jesus said if someone steals your coat give him your shirt also? (Or something similar)? In that case it is just a plain ordinary human being robbed and Jesus didn't say to defend yourself at all. He even said to give the thief an additional item! He also said if someone strikes you to turn your cheek and let him strike the other side. Where in all of that can we justify defending ourselves or our family?

[Brenden]

However, back to my other point. What about when Jesus said if someone steals your coat give him your shirt also? (Or something similar)? In that case it is just a plain ordinary human being robbed and Jesus didn't say to defend yourself at all. He even said to give the thief an additional item!

The context of that statement (If someone asks for your coat, give them your shirt), is that the Romans could demand that the Jews give them their coat. Jesus was saying that the Jews should not only give them their coat, but also their shirt. This applies to us in the sense that when someone asks for something, we should do more than we were asked. The cultural context is no longer really relevant, as nobody can demand that we give them their shirt by law. So we can prevent someone from stealing from us.

He also said if someone strikes you to turn your cheek and let him strike the other side. Where in all of that can we justify defending ourselves or our family?

Mat 5:38  You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
Mat 5:39  But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also

The verse before it makes it seem like this verse is about not seeking revenge, rather than not defending our family or ourselves.

[Vlad!]

That's a tough question; I certainly couldn't just stand by and let an attacker hurt or kill my family. I'm not sure I agree with Brenden in that I don't think using lethal force will ever be the 'best' solution. I admit that it is possible to come up with a contrived example in which it might be, but in general I would say not.

The Christian faith is ultimately about loving everyone. 'Love your enemies' does not mean 'love your enemies to the exclusion of others' but rather 'love everyone; yes, even your enemies.' Also note that love does not necessarily mean submit to. Parents who love their children are encouraged to punish them when appropriate lest showing immediate mercy lead to moral flaws later in life. Love means showing mercy when appropriate, forgiveness when asked, and grace always. Love does not mean passively standing by as a rapist violates and murders a loved one; it means stopping that rapist and then (however hard it may be) forgiving him for what he tried to do even while acknowledging that his actions reap consequences.

Since you reference the U2 thread, I will also say that love means a care for a person's soul. If a person believes in a false religion, love dictates that you gently and gracefully present your views to that person. Not in the tone of "I have an exclusive lease on truth and let me cram it down your throat" but that of "I believe I have come to know the truth; let me share with you what I believe so you can also come to know this truth". Most importantly, love has won far more converts than the sword. By hating a member of another religion, you not only do not show love to that person, you are not being true to Christianity itself! In other words, you are doing as much harm to yourself as you are to the other. But by entering into fellowship with the other person, you show love to that person and also allow God to work in your own heart and bring you closer to him. By doing so--by finding common ground and establishing friendship with the 'enemy'--you are not betraying Christianity by associating with someone who doesn't believe in it. Rather, you are re-affirming Christianity through your actions and words.  

[PaulDA]

Since you reference the U2 thread, I will also say that love means a care for a person's soul. If a person believes in a false religion, love dictates that you gently and gracefully present your views to that person. Not in the tone of "I have an exclusive lease on truth and let me cram it down your throat" but that of "I believe I have come to know the truth; let me share with you what I believe so you can also come to know this truth". Most importantly, love has won far more converts than the sword. By hating a member of another religion, you not only do not show love to that person, you are not being true to Christianity itself!

I don't hate people from other religions nor would I cram Jesus down their throats.
I would do as you said:
"I believe I have come to know the truth; let me share with you what I believe so you can also come to know this truth".
That is far different from just being nice to people and complimenting their religion for weeks or even months and not telling them about Jesus for fear of alienating them.

[adriftconscious]

A spin off from the U2 thread:
-------------------------------------------------------
I would please like a solid answer to this from anyone.
Christians who always talk about "loving our enemies" can never answer this.
There is nothing wrong with loving our enemies. But how far do we take it? Do we let our enemies attack and kill us because we are to love them?
If a fiend breaks into my house am I supposed to let him rape my daughter and wife and let him kill all of us because Jesus didn't lift a hand against the Roman soldiers in the garden of Getseneme? Where do we draw the line from "loving our enemies and giving them our shirt if they steal our coat" to protecting ourselves, our family and our country with lethal force if necessary?

I would like to point out, that many of the early martyrs did just this thing. Rather than resisting, many took their children with them to their deaths. They did this to ensure that the children would not be raised Roman. I think that this would be an example of good stewardship, actually. As grisly as it sounds, which tradeoff is better? The child dies now and sees Christ, or the child lives, is raised Roman, and never meets Christ? Tough choice. The same might be applicable here... if resisting just ends up with you killed and your child an orphan... that might be just as bad as them dying. MIGHT be. As a pacifist I struggle with questions like this everyday. I think that its pretty situational. When faced with violence I must decide each time how to react. When its just me, I generally just take it. But-- and I thankfully haven't been faced with this yet-- if a group of people I'm with is threatened, I would need to decide then and there. Its tough. Very tough.

[PaulDA]

^The 'accountability' theory of protestants is so vague and unprovable that I would be leery of just assuming my child would automatically meet Christ unless the child had truly accepted Jesus as Savior.

[Vlad!]

That is far different from just being nice to people and complimenting their religion for weeks or even months and not telling them about Jesus for fear of alienating them.

I agree with you to some extent, but I would note that the only way that you can enter into productive dialog is once rapport has been established and a relationship based on mutual respect has been established. While I'm not saying that God can't work through street evangelism or thrusting tracts on people, that method is (in my opinion) not the Christian way of ministering. Evangelism in the modern age is primarily effective through relationship.

One important part of relationship is give and take. I had a math teacher once who said "have you ever noticed that those who are most interested in telling you about their religion are the least interested in you telling them about yours?" Part of evangelism is the willingness to humble yourself to the level of the person you are talking with. You aren't some divine messenger, entrusted with the truth and delivering it to the blind masses. You and your friend are fellow seekers, both looking for the truth. Listening to your friend's views is just as important as sharing your own. This is not misplaced tolerance: I'm not saying that you have to accept these views as truth or acknowledge them to be valid. I'm just saying that you need to realize that you and the person you are evangelizing are essentially in the same boat and thus approach the matter with grace and forbearance.

I also note that a statement of fact (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all stem from Abraham) is not 'complimenting their religion'. It is an attempt to find common ground; an appeal to a common heritage as an attempt to start a peaceful dialog.  

[murlough23]

That is far different from just being nice to people and complimenting their religion for weeks or even months and not telling them about Jesus for fear of alienating them.

True, but pointing out the fact that three religions have the same forefather is not the same thing as complimenting those religions. It's just a statement of fact, one that a lot of people are surprisingly unaware of.

I hardly think we could accuse Bono of not telling people about Jesus. He certainly has an unorthodox way of going about it, but there's no denying that Jesus is referenced frequently (and with the exception of the Pop album, positively) in U2's lyrics.

But we can take that back to the Bono thread, probably.

To get back on topic, loving my enemies certainly doesn't equate to letting them do whatever they want to me. As someone pointed out above, letting someone hurt me or kill my children or whatever doesn't help that person. I'm required to come to a point where I can forgive the boyfriend who rapes my daughter... but that doesn't mean I should ever let him come within a block's radius of her again. Forgiving someone as loving them is not the same thing as letting them walk all over you.

Even with friends, this can be an issue - if someone who claims to care about me does something to deeply offend me, does it help more to just forget about it and move on, or to bring it up so that they won't do it to others? What does "turning the other cheek" really mean in that context, or does that even apply?

Also note that love does not necessarily mean submit to.

Bingo! If more people understood this, we'd have fewer parents in Christendom that try to manipulate and control their children by constantly guilt tripping them.

[bloop]

490?

[murlough23]

490?

70 x 7. Nice. That one took me a few minutes.

NP: "All that I Can Do", Bethany Dillon

[PaulDA]

All I know, if some fiend breaks into my house I will use whatever form
of deadly force I need to to protect my family.  

[danny316]

All I know, if some fiend breaks into my house I will use whatever form
of deadly force I need to to protect my family.

Yes, but would that be the loving thing to do? That doesn't seem kind or patient, and....hey WAIT A SECOND!?! THERE'S A COMMANDMENT AGAINST THAT!!!

They did this to ensure that the children would not be raised Roman. I think that this would be an example of good stewardship, actually. As grisly as it sounds, which tradeoff is better? The child dies now and sees Christ, or the child lives, is raised Roman, and never meets Christ? Tough choice. The same might be applicable here... if resisting just ends up with you killed and your child an orphan... that might be just as bad as them dying.

Stop it, decent rationales for why abortion shouldn't be illegal aren't generally supported here. Changing the issue you're supporting with that logic only adds a parody-factor, which frankly, people here won't find funny.

That said, I'd think it was pretty funny if some of the diehard pro-lifers here bought the ideas in that post.

One important part of relationship is give and take. I had a math teacher once who said "have you ever noticed that those who are most interested in telling you about their religion are the least interested in you telling them about yours?" Part of evangelism is the willingness to humble yourself to the level of the person you are talking with. You aren't some divine messenger, entrusted with the truth and delivering it to the blind masses. You and your friend are fellow seekers, both looking for the truth. Listening to your friend's views is just as important as sharing your own. This is not misplaced tolerance: I'm not saying that you have to accept these views as truth or acknowledge them to be valid. I'm just saying that you need to realize that you and the person you are evangelizing are essentially in the same boat and thus approach the matter with grace and forbearance.

How very post-modern of you. Shouldn't we still be telling them that we think that they're going to burn in hell though? I mean, it's like the cure for cancer or something. Whatever euphemism we're supposed to use to encourage us to overdo evangelism this week.

Forgiving someone as loving them is not the same thing as letting them walk all over you.

Funny, I could have sworn I was born again as a sidewalk. Seriously though, I like what you're saying (because it doesn't require too much of me), but I don't know if it's truly a biblical position. Do we say that forgiveness doesn't require us to allow ourselves to be walked on because we don't like being walked on, or because it's difficult in a realistic sense, or is there some place in the bible that defines forgiveness that way?

Even with friends, this can be an issue - if someone who claims to care about me does something to deeply offend me, does it help more to just forget about it and move on, or to bring it up so that they won't do it to others? What does "turning the other cheek" really mean in that context, or does that even apply?

This gets into tough ideas of friendship. Is a friend so loyal, that he'd never point out something wrong to someone? I've met many people who'd say yes, but I think they're insane. I think friendship requires accountability, and that we should point out things to friends, but frankly, in my experience it doesn't work that way. Whether your intentions are good or not, people don't like to be told they're wrong (regardless of how the truth or an alternate viewpoint is presented to them).

In that context though, I think that turning the other cheek invites the offensive behavior to be repeated. Continuing to "love" a person is actually more irritating to both people involved than cutting ties with that person. "Turning the other cheek" seems to apply (I don't see any reason why it wouldn't), but it can be harmful - so again, we have a pragmatic problem with applying a biblical idea, and the biblical idea seems to get the shaft. (OK, so maybe most people don't shaft biblical ideas as quickly as I do - either way, we can discuss from there, right?)

[murlough23]

Do we say that forgiveness doesn't require us to allow ourselves to be walked on because we don't like being walked on, or because it's difficult in a realistic sense, or is there some place in the bible that defines forgiveness that way?

I just figure that if you love someone, you wouldn't purposefully enable them to do wrong. Allowing them to abuse you is enabling them to do wrong. An adult child still letting his mother boss him around when it's clear that what she's telling him to do is for her own personal satisfaction and not actually for the good of the child is, in my book, abusive behavior. The mother can be treated with love without her every command being obeyed.

Similarly, parents have to love their children, but certainly don't have to allow their children to take advantage of them. Loving someone often does not coincide with giving them whatever they want.

This gets into tough ideas of friendship. Is a friend so loyal, that he'd never point out something wrong to someone? I've met many people who'd say yes, but I think they're insane. I think friendship requires accountability, and that we should point out things to friends, but frankly, in my experience it doesn't work that way. Whether your intentions are good or not, people don't like to be told they're wrong (regardless of how the truth or an alternate viewpoint is presented to them).

Love hurts sometimes, and I'm not saying we should be insensitive to people's feelings, but when you've built a relationship of trust with a person, you'd better hope that they'd try to set you straight if you ever went astray. I hope my friends would do that, though it's very likely that I wouldn't swallow it very easily if it really happened. I'm stubborn, which is why I need people like that in my life.

To quote a Superchic[k] song, "I'm sorry that I'm getting on your case, but true friends, they stab you in the face". (As opposed to the back, I'm guessing.)

In that context though, I think that turning the other cheek invites the offensive behavior to be repeated. Continuing to "love" a person is actually more irritating to both people involved than cutting ties with that person.

Don't I know it. In several situations where I'd have cut ties with a person, but it's up to them to choose whether to continue hanging around me, they've chosen the harder route and stuck around, much to my chagrin. I later end up becoming thankful (usually) that they didn't cooperate with my attempts to get rid of them.

"Turning the other cheek" seems to apply (I don't see any reason why it wouldn't), but it can be harmful - so again, we have a pragmatic problem with applying a biblical idea, and the biblical idea seems to get the shaft. (OK, so maybe most people don't shaft biblical ideas as quickly as I do - either way, we can discuss from there, right?)

When Biblical ideas and human logic don't appear to line up, I tend to think that human logic is wrong. However, it may be the logic applied to understanding the Biblical idea that is wrong, so instead of just blindly ditching common sense and going with my surface impression of what the Bible is telling me, I tend to figure that the Biblical idea in question warrants further study. I will often challenge popular perceptions of what the Bible is saying, but I'm not one to just throw out parts of the Bible wholesale because they don't align with my view of a perfect world.

[Guest]

All I know, if some fiend breaks into my house I will use whatever form
of deadly force I need to to protect my family.

Yes, but would that be the loving thing to do? That doesn't seem kind or patient, and....hey WAIT A SECOND!?! THERE'S A COMMANDMENT AGAINST THAT!!!
 

You must be crazy if you think I am going to let some cretin hurt my wife or daughter. We are to protect our family and if I have to I would kill the fiend. God wants us to protect our familes. Just as the commandement 'you shall shall not kill' doesn't apply to soldiers in war, it applies to 'murder', it also doesn't apply if I kill some sub human scum who tries to hurt my family.
Is that clear enough?

[PaulDA]

^That was me in case you couldn't guess.

[danny316]

You're very clear Paul, and I have perused some of C.S. Lewis's arguments for your position a few times. However, I don't agree. It seems clever enough to insert an exception there, and it does make the commandment much more palatable, but the arguments for your position just don't have me convinced.

That said, I was kind of trying to be funny when I brought it up. I know I'm in the minority when I say that I don't think that self-defense and war are exceptions to that commandment (largely based on a translation from an original language where the term for "kill" wasn't viewed as it is today, if I recall the main argument correctly).  

[Brenden]

You're very clear Paul, and I have perused some of C.S. Lewis's arguments for your position a few times. However, I don't agree. It seems clever enough to insert an exception there, and it does make the commandment much more palatable, but the arguments for your position just don't have me convinced.

That said, I was kind of trying to be funny when I brought it up. I know I'm in the minority when I say that I don't think that self-defense and war are exceptions to that commandment (largely based on a translation from an original language where the term for "kill" wasn't viewed as it is today, if I recall the main argument correctly).

There was a part of the OT where it is stated that the commandment forbids intentional killing out of malice, I don't remember where exactly. Leviticus or Deuteronomy, I think.

But either way, war and self-defense would fall into the "morally acceptable" realm based on that. But I might be getting verses mixed up.

[murlough23]

You must be crazy if you think I am going to let some cretin hurt my wife or daughter. We are to protect our family and if I have to I would kill the fiend. God wants us to protect our familes. Just as the commandement 'you shall shall not kill' doesn't apply to soldiers in war, it applies to 'murder', it also doesn't apply if I kill some sub human scum who tries to hurt my family.
Is that clear enough?

While I support what you're saying (though I would prefer to disable rather than kill if I had such an option), I have to point out that that "scum" is every bit as human as you are, and likewise, you're as scummy as he is. (So am I.)

NP: "When You Hold Me", Jaci Velasquez

[PaulDA]

You must be crazy if you think I am going to let some cretin hurt my wife or daughter. We are to protect our family and if I have to I would kill the fiend. God wants us to protect our familes. Just as the commandement 'you shall shall not kill' doesn't apply to soldiers in war, it applies to 'murder', it also doesn't apply if I kill some sub human scum who tries to hurt my family.
Is that clear enough?

While I support what you're saying (though I would prefer to disable rather than kill if I had such an option), I have to point out that that "scum" is every bit as human as you are, and likewise, you're as scummy as he is. (So am I.)
 

That may be so in God's eyes, but I will take my chances.
I am not a violent person in general but if some 'human' murdered my daughter or wife he would probably not make it to trial. I'd take my chances with God later. Maybe I'll think differently in a year or two, but not now.

[Brenden]

You must be crazy if you think I am going to let some cretin hurt my wife or daughter. We are to protect our family and if I have to I would kill the fiend. God wants us to protect our familes. Just as the commandement 'you shall shall not kill' doesn't apply to soldiers in war, it applies to 'murder', it also doesn't apply if I kill some sub human scum who tries to hurt my family.
Is that clear enough?

While I support what you're saying (though I would prefer to disable rather than kill if I had such an option), I have to point out that that "scum" is every bit as human as you are, and likewise, you're as scummy as he is. (So am I.)
 

That may be so in God's eyes, but I will take my chances.
I am not a violent person in general but if some 'human' murdered my daughter or wife he would probably not make it to trial. I'd take my chances with God later. Maybe I'll think differently in a year or two, but not now.

But it still would be murder, and not excusable because it was simply an act of revenge rather than self-defense.

Then there's that "vengeance is mine says the Lord" verse.

[murlough23]

But it still would be murder, and not excusable because it was simply an act of revenge rather than self-defense.

I read what he was saying as self-defense, actually. Like if the person was attempting to hurt his daughter and the only way to stop that person was by force. I think that's justifiable as self-defense. Going and hunting him down later, after the crime has been committed... that's a different story.

[PaulDA]

At first I was speaking in anger and I actually did mean I would kill him before the trial, but that was just emotion talking.
Then I reworded it to mean both in self-defense and maybe I might attack him before the trial.
But, as has been pointed out, that would be revenge and murder on my part no matter how heinous the crime was i was avanging.
This type of thing is so hard for me to grasp.
I read stories all the time of how a murdered child's parent's forgave the murderer and even visited them in jail and had them come over their house when they got out.
One murdered young lady's parent's even hired the murderers to work for them in Africa where the parents are missionaries!!!
That is really amazing grace, and you can read more about it in Phillip Yancy's book,
'What Is So Amazing About Grace'.
I'll be honest, I am not at that point, not even close and I wonder if I'll ever be able to get there.  

[murlough23]

Well, that's very big of you to admit your personal struggle with this issue. And in all fairness, I claim to be "there", but I don't have any children. And I've gotten angry and taken revenge on people for much less than that (I haven't killed them, but I've often felt justified in doing to them what they did to me, or something nastier). So I can understand the struggle to let vengeance be God's and not our own.

Of course God would forgive you if you took the law into your own hands and murdered the murderer. But you'd probably have to go to jail for it all the same. God's forgiveness often doesn't mean that we outrun the consequences of our actions.

Have you ever heard Steven Curtis Chapman's Declaration album? There's a song on that album called "No Greater Love", which is dedicated to a missionary who went to South America to spread the Gospel to indigenous and isolated tribes somewhere around Ecuador. Long story short, at one point some of the natives revolted and killed the missionary. The voice of one of the murderers, who has since then become a Christian, can be heard chanting a prayer in his native tongue at the end of the song. Pretty powerful if you know the story behind it.