Why I am not a pacifist

I am not a pacifist. But here are my reasons why.

I am too violent, too fearful, to angry, too easily provoked, too unforgiving.

I lust for vengeance, and this is vengeance I crave not justice for it is not in love that I seek it. I have a cruel streak. If my friends have not seen it it is only because in my fear and pride I have very carefully hidden it.

In short I know myself too well

Scripture is most clear. The anger of men does not work the righteousness of God. When men covet something but have it not they fight wars. I should love my enemies, turn the other cheek and resist not evil.

But of course as a sinner I am incapable of doing these things, especially when I see that my efforts, being repression of the impulse I would oppose, is by that very nature hypocrisy

And of course I do not have the God given right to bear arms that I might blow away any who would rob me or harm me, my family  or my friends. Self defence, as we dare call it,  of this kind is not even remotely biblical. Look at the Sermon on the Mount and see how utterly opposed to human nature, my nature, that it is

The state might indeed have the right to execute criminals - I have no principled objection to the death penalty, only profound concerns about the innocent being murdered by the state due to incorrect verdicts, as happens all too often. But that any state claim to be the policeman of the World as Tsar Nicholas  I first himself up as the Gendarme of Europe from the 1830's onward, is arrogant hypocrisy. No country is so saturated in mercy and justice that it has the right to enforce what it calls morals on any other land

War is sin and the fiction of the just war was invented by that heretic Augustine, falsely in my opinion called "saint" of Hippo, the man so out of touch with his own past which included rank heresy as a Manichaean, that he required state persecution of those who were as he was as a young man.

So I am not a pacifist. Not because the contrary line  of doctrine  is even remotely justified, but because it goes against my own nature, as every commandment of God does. For I will not start from the standpoint that my impulse is right and that all doctrinal cloth must be cut to fit this presumption. If it opposes my own nature and thus exposes my own sin it may very well be true. But I cannot oppose my own nature by brute force of will any longer. Thus knowing what I should be I know that I am not and cannot be what I should be, and even my effort is a blasphemous outrage. So I would fight back like any one else

But pacifism is an ideal and by God's grace, when I have confessed and repented, and only by his grace, will He bestow it on as violent and evil a heart as mine.

And if I ever become spiritual what will I do if attacked by an armed man or some such similar?

I will do what scripture commands, and simply die, moreover, by His grace, I will die well.

But not today.

My sin is too intractable till He act, for this  to happen today

Deep Logic

C S Lewis spoke of a "Deep Magic" in his Narnia stories. I speak of a Deep Logic. The atheist account of scripture is that it is a tissue of priestly lies to control and exploit a gullible population of peasants - and this is true insofar as this has been done for millennia.

But this is abuse, not use, and abuse does not detract from proper use. For digging into the text of the Bible I see this cannot be so as pertaining to the scriptures themselves. The logic of it is something that cannot have been dreamed up by men. It is both beautiful, almost terrifying and awe inspiring. A super intelligence and wisdom lurks within the pages.

As such I have a growing conviction, not yet clear enough to really articulate properly. that the Bible itself is proof of God's being and character, that the Bible is logically self authenticating.

And the only of this is that I only became eligible to even begin to see this after repenting of Protestant Bible worship which abuses the truth of Verbal  Plenary Inspiration of the text to read it with rigidity incapable of drawing logical links within it.

However this conviction of mine is not clear enough for me to be able to articulate further than I have here at this time

Reflections on the subversion of democracy

Every one is commenting on the most recent US presidential election. This is a small part of what I could say on it

Because I never supported either Candidate in the US election (a brief flutter of hope  on the night as it became clear Trump had won notwithstanding) I did not have to justify my emotional conviction by making myself believe that my choice (for I never had one) was in any way a good person, and because I did not have such a choice I did not have to justify to others said choice by presenting the corollaries of my emotional convictions as evidence for my convictions.

To do such is to assume the truth of what one tries to prove which is to argue in a logical circle , the fallacy of "petitio principii" - lit to appeal to the principle, or begging the question. Of course such argument proves absolutely nothing. What stuns me is that intelligent people on both sides, those with degrees and university education, have argued in exactly this way subverting all rules of logic and evidential observation for the sake of emotional passion. Does anyone else see that the hysteria on both  sides, the refusal to rationally consider from the basis of what both candidates said, that THIS is more damaging to the democratic ideal than anything else?

The double standard beggars belief. Clinton supporters denied her gloating, "We came we saw HE DIED," called it opposition propaganda or out of context because they knew full well that as it clearly demonstrated that this woman is a war monger as did her destruction of Libya and her consistently hawkish record., all of which are matters of public record yet which they were too lazy to consult. But while denying her words in this manner they  insisted on  focussing on Trump's "grabbing pussy" talk or his "Mexicans are rapists" talk, or his inciting of violence talk, his offering to pay the legal fees of any who assaulted anyone who dared protest at his rallies.


But Trumpists did the same thing. The Don was "joking" "using rhetoric'- but they all call rhetoric like this  lies  when the other candidate does it -  or he was "taken out of context."  His obscene talk about women  was "locker room talk" etc and more egregiously, they insist that the media spread lies. Not when Trump is  on video saying these things. He did not mean it? This is no defence of the man, for if he really did not mean what he said  his speeches were  a cynical pandering to the redneck vote who clearly believed that Mexicans were rapists  on his cue and voted accordingly

Integrity, intelligence, reason, evidence? Even a consistent application of the standard that "the mouth speaks the fullness of the heart"'and that what a candidate might say would therefore indicate their evil? Forget it.  Even if those who argue such are Christians who profess to believe the quote from the gospels  I just gave, they have thrown away even the attempt to apply the scripture properly and instead will come up with half baked notions that Clinton was the Queen of the Witches or that Trump was chosen of God as Cyrus the Great was chosen for the Jews , forgetting that the promises of the New Covenant are more excellent than such and national protection only really applied to the Jews who have always been under the Old Covenant.

So much for belief in the gospel, when Old Covenant thought is appealed to on one hand, or rank superstition justified by blasphemous appeals to divine revelation on the other.

In the passion of this moment even the highly intelligent became part of the mindless mob. I fear for Western civilization when this becomes the nature of political discourse.

And why do professing Christians do this? Clearly they do not believe  that we are strangers and sojourners on this earth. They do not believe that heaven is our home and that the Kingdom of heaven is not of this world. So they fear like unbelievers  because ultimately they, and I insofar as I still do so, think like unbelievers. These are scriptural quotes, and if any reader calling himself a Christian does not know them he demonstrates my point.

We Christians are the salt of the earth? Not when we surrender to such hysteria as this. We have lost our savour, as well as rejected our Saviour, and risk being thrown out to be trampled  by men

 

A Retort

Some time ago I posted somewhere on some issue that really is not relevant to the point I seek to make here. But one of the replies was pure legalism. My interlocuter said that we do not get to cherry pick which commands to obey as Christianity is not a smorgasbord.

I saw no point in replying to him in the forum is question, but I think a valid point is to be made.

It says in James 2:10  that he who breaks one commandment has broken them all. It thus follows that only the perfectly sinless obey the Law, by which I mean the Moral law, for everyone else, namely sinners like us, simply do not and have not ever obeyed the Law of God.

And if anyone tries to claim that he is sufficiently free of sin to actually do so, well that is to claim perfection where there is none possible, as I John 1:10 says any who says he has no sin is a liar

Indeed Paul the Apostle also said this was the impossible  thing of the Law, and he tried hard enough to fail with specular agony. I also did and failed with years of real torment,

So, if a person does not obey the Law at all either he has cherry picked those commandments  he actually attempts to try - and failed of course - , or he has failed manifestly in all and his consistent legalistic approach  is useless.

Moreover I  assert that even trying to hold the entire Law in conscious thought to attempt to obey any of it is impossible anyway,  for the sheer strain is too much for any carnal mind.

As regards the question of legalism they ask should Christian keep the moral Law. This is a loaded question for the answer is apparently self evident. But to ask the proper question is to get a totally different answer.

This question is do any of us actually in point of fact obey the Law? The answer is NO.

This renders all our talk and all our efforts pointless.

There can only remain the personal relationship with the Spirit of Christ

My safety in Christ as it is now

I now know that I have never believed that God loved anyone, or that if He did it was only conditional on one's keeping of the Law, which I cannot do, so therefore I am excluded.

There is not the slightest value in my asserting propositions just because they are true. Such is not faith but hypocrisy  and it is an effort I can no longer endure let alone practice.  This effort is not holding fast to sound doctrine  as St Paul commands but is in fact a refusal. a self righteous one to boot, to acknowledge the sin of unbelief  whereby we have already forsaken said sound doctrine.

Thus the primacy of the intellect, a doctrine the Puritans built their lives on, is part of the hypocrite's mandate. In repressing my unbelieving heart I stirred up my unbelief to  an unmanageable extent. It is better to confess unbelief than pretend faith, and C S Lewis notwithstanding, pretending to faith is a blasphemous absurdity.

How can I be a Christian then? Not by what I believe but by Who I met that dark night now just over 38 years ago. Indeed without such encounter I hold that no one is a Christian at all, though what the encounter is, the nature of it,  is to be determined by what God knows is needful in every individual person.

And how does the Lord keep me safe, for my sense of safety in Him is slowly but genuinely growing?

He gives me ecstasy in my meditations of the Mysterium Tremendum, the tremendous mystery of His unutterable holiness.

Some 5 years  after I was converted he gave me a revelation of this, as I previously shared here earlier.

Although at this time my terror is coming out, He leads me in one on one counsel to confess to Him that I am in fact terrified - no "confessions of faith" here. Then He leads me to repent of some aspect of the unbelief behind the fear, whatever it suits His purpose to lead me in at that time. This is pure personal relationship between a terrified child and his daddy, or a patient and his counsellor - but God the Spirit is the only counsellor I will ever accept now - and it is  nothing else. I am totally helpless and reliant on His leading in cleansing.

My safety is that He is Holy and Terrible. This is not fear but Awe. And if I must tell Him that the notion that loving Him is utter nonsense or that He loves anything  but Himself is pure wishful thinking, so be it. Such as this must be confessed, for if not, and it is in you, it will destroy your faith as it nearly destroyed mine.

But I am drawn by the Tremendous Mystery  of the Holy and Terrible. the one thing I have always listened to. If I could admit to it I have discovered  by experience and relationship  His gentleness  patience and kindness, but that I cannot bring my self to do. Not yet, at least.

So though unbelieving I am relatively safe.

This work, though provisional, being a stepping stone to a further goal, is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in my eyes

Subverted Scriptures 4

"Be angry but do not sin"  Ephesians 4:26 is subverted by being taken out of context, which in this instance is the broader context of scripture as a whole  given that other passages on the subject of wrath are scattered throughout the Bible.

The implication taken from this verse read alone, and I have been told this  by those subverting the verse in the very manner I am writing about here, is that anger is not sin.

This is usually untrue. The Sermon on the Mount is most clear

He who is angry at his brother is a murderer, and elsewhere it is written that the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. Likewise is wrath listed as one of the fruits of the flesh.

Of course they are keen to subvert the scripture here in order to justify their own anger. But it is not an anger in love for it is not an anger for those who do evil such that they earnestly long for their reconciliation to God and their restoration, even though many will tell bare faced lies concerning their own motive here. For the anger of man requires vengeance first, while for the wrath of God, longsuffering, that is to say patient, anger is the last resort.

Indeed even when as an unbeliever I was under wrath of God  the Holy Spirit himself reached down in love  to save me one dark night almost exactly 38 years ago. This is not the anger of men

There is righteous anger but one must be spiritual to be righteously angry.

And the fruit of the Spirit I have never seen in any living person, Oh, I know some Christian who would count as commonly decent, but as Jesus said if you love those who love you, which is te basic meaning of the term common decency,  there is no merit in it.

(I will return later to provide biblical references for the quotes made here)

Being a good person: the unplatable truth of human nature

The way it goes and I have seen certain questions become litmus tests for this very thing, is that if one wants to show oneself to be a good person then one either seeks to love something, which is difficult for it requires commitment, a love in fact, and effort and even what may be called sacrifice; or one finds something evil to hate. This latter is much easier and I see it time and time again, I have even done it myself. But as scripture says our righteousness is filthy rags, in other words it simply does not count, for it is self righteousness. Righteous anger is not what evil you are angry at but how you are angry at it, otherwise the destructive raping and murdering anger of the Soviet armies as they plunged into Germany at the end of World War II was righteous. Think so? I assuredly do not, and feel it necessary to regard the view I hold here as the only  alternative to such I can find.

When Social Justice Warriors go berserk at an evil, even a real and manifest evil, and riot, throw tantrums, or a preacher rants about executing homosexuals simply because of an out of context misuse of a  verse in the Law of God, we see, independent of any objective truth about the evil, an evil response.

Righteous anger, I assert, is angry not  at the evil doer so much as is  angry for them, deeply desiring their restoration, where human anger simply wants heads to roll in order to make the bad go away for the convenience of the angry person. Hence virtually all the demonstrations against evil I have witnessed over the years, from those against football matches with an apartheid nation, as in 1981, one of which I saw as  a student then, to those for or against homosexuality or abortion are all the anger of men which does not work the righteousness of God (James 1:20), for   even when the issue has no personal connection with the protester, it has become a litmus test for goodness  but it is pointless, being a shibboleth to identify friend from foe not an expression of loving one's enemies

It is a bitter irony that the only people who say that man is evil are great saints, and I know none, or misanthropes, which I have been. However I suspect that misanthropes are embittered because they see perhaps only dimly, but it seems to me clearer than most, what they cannot accept

But as the Spirit leads me to repent of further man pleasing and idolatry I will come to accept what I begin to see, namely that as I am evil I do not need to conjure up a hatred of evil which is self righteousness, nor hold certain positions on certainly litmus questions in order to be seen as good by pothers, nor force good works which are invalidated as good works by their motives (see I Corinthians 13).

That my righteous is filthy rags is unpalatable to all of us. But being honest about it as well as seeking the Lord the Spirit concerning it makes for a much easier life and will contribute to gaining the peace  which surpasses all understanding