Day 113 Reflection
April 29, 2013
2 Samuel 10-12, Psalm 93, Acts 8
The Rev. Mark Andrew Jones, BSG
David is now king. He is sufficiently secure that he lets others do his
fighting for him. Meanwhile, David discovers that other conquests lay
before him; so he takes another man’s wife. Perhaps most remarkable in the
story is the prophet Nathan, who has the moral courage to speak truth to
power. In doing so, Nathan does not harshly denounce as later prophets do
(e.g., Elijah or Amos). No, instead Nathan tells the king a parable, and
lets the king convict himself.
Nathan’s approach presupposes some common sense of justice, and that the king
ultimately is a person of good will with the decency to deplore injustice.
This approach touches on a contemporary debate. It has been argued that
the non-violent protests of Gandhi prevailed over the British and led to India’s
independence, because the British were fundamentally people of good will who
deplore injustice. It’s been argued that the same cannot be said of Hitler
and the Nazis or of any other brutal totalitarian regime that values the State,
the Party or the Leader over that of the individual.
As Saul persecutes the early Church, he appears to meet only passive
resistance. In time, Christian ethics will evolve to endorse a “Just War
Theory.” Rather than sanctioning violence per se, it is a means for
limiting violence. The simple fact that war has broken out among sinful
human beings does not then remove all boundaries on the potential use of deadly
force.
In this Age of Terror, we face many threats. I’m not suggesting
Christians must be advocates of passivism; but neither should we endorse
military actions without due deliberation about the moral criteria, such as
articulated in the Just War Theory. Sometimes we still should turn the
other cheek. Finding the line is to be a matter of heart, mind and reason
– not just an emotional reaction.
April 29, 2013
2 Samuel 10-12, Psalm 93, Acts 8
The Rev. Mark Andrew Jones, BSG
David is now king. He is sufficiently secure that he lets others do his
fighting for him. Meanwhile, David discovers that other conquests lay
before him; so he takes another man’s wife. Perhaps most remarkable in the
story is the prophet Nathan, who has the moral courage to speak truth to
power. In doing so, Nathan does not harshly denounce as later prophets do
(e.g., Elijah or Amos). No, instead Nathan tells the king a parable, and
lets the king convict himself.
Nathan’s approach presupposes some common sense of justice, and that the king
ultimately is a person of good will with the decency to deplore injustice.
This approach touches on a contemporary debate. It has been argued that
the non-violent protests of Gandhi prevailed over the British and led to India’s
independence, because the British were fundamentally people of good will who
deplore injustice. It’s been argued that the same cannot be said of Hitler
and the Nazis or of any other brutal totalitarian regime that values the State,
the Party or the Leader over that of the individual.
As Saul persecutes the early Church, he appears to meet only passive
resistance. In time, Christian ethics will evolve to endorse a “Just War
Theory.” Rather than sanctioning violence per se, it is a means for
limiting violence. The simple fact that war has broken out among sinful
human beings does not then remove all boundaries on the potential use of deadly
force.
In this Age of Terror, we face many threats. I’m not suggesting
Christians must be advocates of passivism; but neither should we endorse
military actions without due deliberation about the moral criteria, such as
articulated in the Just War Theory. Sometimes we still should turn the
other cheek. Finding the line is to be a matter of heart, mind and reason
– not just an emotional reaction.
RSS Feed