My friend Tyler Stewart sent me this story a while back, but I hadn't seen it until now. And it's too good not to post:
...

Julio Diaz, a 31-year-old Bronx social worker, just wanted to do what he did every night on the way home from work: grab a quick bite to eat at his favorite diner. Only one thing stood in his way from doing just that—a mugger. When Diaz stepped off the train and onto the subway platform, a teenager ran up to him, pulled out a knife, and demanded Diaz hand over his wallet. Realizing it wasn't worth a fight, Diaz fished the wallet out of his pocket and gave it to the boy. Much to the mugger's surprise, Diaz decided to go the extra mile. As the teen ran away, Diaz called out, "If you're going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm."

The boy stopped in his tracks, shocked. Diaz explained that it was quite clear the teen needed money, so he told him to keep the wallet, take the coat, and if he wanted, grab a bite to eat with Diaz. The boy was too shocked to say no.

As the two ate dinner at Diaz's favorite diner, the teen marveled over how many dishwashers and waitresses offered Diaz a wave or a friendly word. He figured Diaz owned the place. When the boy shared his observation, Diaz smiled and said, "Haven't you been taught you should be nice to everybody?"

"Yeah," the teen replied, "but I didn't think people actually behaved that way."

The two continued to talk about life and other matters. When the bill finally came, Diaz told the boy that he needed his wallet to pay. The boy handed it back over without thinking twice. Diaz paid for the meal and offered the teen $20. He also asked that his would-be mugger surrender the knife—which he did.

When Diaz told his mother about the encounter, she said, "You're the type of kid that if someone asked you for the time, you would give them your watch."

...

Third (see below), I have long thought that the accusation of “naive” simply doesn’t make sense when used by a non-pacifist of a pacifist. I get this all the time: “You're being naive. You want a world that doesn’t exist. In the real world, violence is necessary to deal with evil.” So often I want to say, “No, you want a world that doesn’t exist. In the real world, violence simply doesn’t deal effectively with evil - at least not as well as you imply.”

People often bring up Hitler as the prime example of when it was necessary to engage in violence. That may or may not be true, but it is a fact that even though Hitler is now dead, evil continues to wreak havoc on our world. Killing Hitler did not stop the birth and accession to power of men like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. (I only pick these two because in my culture they are the two most recent and baddest bad guys.) The fact is that we live in a world where evil is and will continue to be, and nothing we can do will change this fact.

Of course one can make the argument that evil must nevertheless be restrained or minimized, and that violence is necessary for this task. First, while the first part is true, it is no way proven, or even likely in my opinion, that continuing the cycle of violence is the most effective way to minimize the world’s violence. Second, even if it were, that says nothing about the responsibility of Jesus-followers to participate in this violent restraint. If it is true that our central task is not effectiveness in making the world a bit safer place, but rather faithfulness to the gospel and lordship of Jesus the Messiah, then the whole point is moot. (Again, I’m oversimplifying, but it really does seem this clear to me, at least some of the time.)

As for the main point I’m trying to make, I was glad to see Carter similarly picking apart this idea that pacifists are somehow more naive than non-pacifists when it comes to living in a violent evil world. We must all first acknowledge what can and cannot be expected to result from our attempts to mitigate evil, whether through the use or the rejection of violence. No program or system or commitment is going to rid the world of evil and/or war. And, second, we must allow this realism to bring to light how we are and should evaluate our actions in this regard. Which question is more important: What actions will most effectively minimize evil and suffering in this world? What actions will most faithfully witness to the gospel and lordship of Jesus Christ? Perhaps they are the same question; then again, perhaps not. (And now, by the way, we come full circle, for it makes no sense to opt for the second question apart from the reality and promise of resurrection.)

...

My good friend Ty recently posted a question on his blog about Christian pacifism (the idea that violence is never appropriate for followers of Jesus) and the Old Testament.

He wrote: "One problem I have is that God Himself does not appear to be a pacifist, in fact, in several places in the Old Tesatment commanding outright genocide. A typical example of this is in 1 Samuel 15, which reads, in part: "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." How can we reconcile Jesus's statements in Matthew, with the many others in the Old Testament?"

This is a very common and important question, one of many such questions I intend to address in the somewhat near future, but I thought it worthwhile to offer up my initial thoughts on the topic and see what discussion they might generate. ( Read more )

Hello friends. I just finished my third of four weeks of preaching in our series Things I Wish Jesus Never Said. It has been quite a ride, and I am pretty exhausted. We have four services, which is a lot of talking for me, but I think the more tiresome aspect has been the subjects we've tackled. Today's passage was Jesus telling a rich guy to sell everything he had and give to the poor. Yeah, tell that to people living in one of the nicest, cleanest, safest cities in one of the most marketable, money-driven states in the richest country in the history of the world! I saw many heads angrily shaking and even got a semi-stern talking-to from a gentleman after our Saturday night services. But for every head-shaker, there have been multiple heartfelt thank-yous and people who said it was exactly what they needed to hear. I even had some people tell me I showed lots of courage, which I found very meaningful. (Beth said something to me that I will absolutely never forget - I think it might be the most important thing anyone has ever said to me, but she said it to me so you don't get to hear it.) I told the truth as best I knew how, so I am as satisfied as one can be with something as odd as preaching. Anyhow, I said I'd post the messages, so here are the first two. I'd love to hear your thoughts, be they positive, negative, neutral, or whatever else thoughts might be.

Click here to hear my sermon on "Turn the Other Cheek" (Matthew 5.38-42)

Click here to hear my sermon on "Do Not Judge" (Matthew 7.1-5)

Click here to download these or any other messages preached at Real Life.

...

This past weekend I preached a sermon on one of Jesus' most famous sayings: "Turn the other cheek." As soon as it is available, I plan to post a link to the audio file here on the blog, but in the meantime I thought I'd share this story that puts into action much of what this passage is all about. This is a true story that was reported in the Washington Post on July 13, 2007 (click here for the online version).

A Gate-Crasher's Change of Heart
The Guests Were Enjoying French Wine and Cheese on a Capitol Hill Patio. When a Gunman Burst In, the Would-Be Robbery Took an Unusual Turn.
By Allison Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page B01

A grand feast of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp was winding down, and a group of friends was sitting on the back patio of a Capitol Hill home, sipping red wine. Suddenly, a hooded man slid in through an open gate and put the barrel of a handgun to the head of a 14-year-old guest.

"Give me your money, or I'll start shooting," he demanded, according to D.C. police and witness accounts.

The five other guests, including the girls' parents, froze -- and then one spoke. ( Read more )

My friend Thom over at Semper Reformanda posted a list of "confessions," and while I was in class I decided to get in on the fun. He told me to post them here, so I did. I don't know who's out there and reading this, but give it a shot - it will be therapeutic and fun. Many of the topics I address are chosen in response to Thom's post, so reading his post will help you get why I chose some of them, though his is more "academic" than mine (he throws out more big words and names) and you don't really have to read it in order to understand mine. So without further ado, here are some confessions (with appropriate explanations) in no particular order.

I confess that if I had to pick a side in the debate on hell, I would choose conditionalism (annihilationism) over the traditional view. (This basically means that I don't think the Bible teaches that people who don't respond favorably to Jesus will "burn in hell" forever, but that there will be a judgment in accordance with degrees of evil committed, after which they will simply cease to exist. Sometime I'm going to lay out the arguments for each position on this blog, and explain in detail why I confess this. And yes I put this one first because it will grab your attention and make you keep reading. I hope you're not disappointed.)

I confess that I think feminism often fails because it isn't postmodern enough. (see first comment below)

I confess that I think it's problematic to begin theologizing from one's experience of being abused by abuses of a particular idea or system (i.e. male leadership). I confess that when I hear women point to painful experiences as proof that male headship is wrong/evil and that feminist theology must therefore be accepted, it sounds similar to people arguing that the "wars of religion" render Christianity incredible. (Which they don't, by the way, since the wars were all about emerging national identities, and the wise politicians knew that the only way to rally enough support was by using religious rhetoric (hmm). I may perhaps be overgeneralizing, but at the very least I can say for sure that the people leading and participating were not overly concerned with loyalty to the way of Jesus, and thus their actions say nothing about the credibility of Christianity. What is ironic is that what we are told to accept in their place - a politic based on the shared identity of a nation-state and consequential disregard for the well-being of other nations - is arguably what caused the wars in the first place.)

I confess that I too affirm the ordination of women.

( Read more )