An appalling misuse of scripture to justify war? The Christian soldier.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance37.html

I found this at Lew Rockwell. It's an article by a Laurence M. Vance about an English Baptist minister who appears to have been quite influential at one time, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

What are your thoughts? Also, I recall reading in a Martin Marty book several years ago that Baptists, at least at one time, were against school prayer because they didn't want just anyone leading their children in prayer.


"As I have previously pointed out, there is no denying the fact that the Bible likens a Christian to a soldier. But as Spurgeon points out, the Christian’s true warfare is a spiritual one:

"First of all, note that this crusade, this sacred, holy war of which I speak, is not with men, but with Satan and with error. "We wrestle not with flesh and blood." Christian men are not at war with any man that walks the earth. We are at war with infidelity, but the persons of infidels we love and pray for; we are at warfare with any heresy, but we have no enmity against heretics; we are opposed to, and cry war to the knife with everything that opposes God and his truth: but towards every man we would still endeavour to carry out the holy maxim, "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you." The Christian soldier hath no gun and no sword, for he fighteth not with men. It is with "spiritual wickedness in high places" that he fights, and with other principalities and powers than with those that sit on thrones and hold sceptres in their hands. ....."

....

Charles Spurgeon was not alone, for as I have pointed out elsewhere, Baptist ministers in America during the nineteenth century held the same opinions about Christianity and war. Christian agitation or apology for war is an aberration from the principles of Christianity, the folly of which is exceeded only by its appalling misuse of Scripture.

Modern conservative, fundamentalist, and evangelical Christians, all of whom might claim him as one of their own, have much to learn from Spurgeon, not only for his example of an uncompromising and successful Christian minister, but also for his consistent opposition to war and Christian war fever."


Interesting, don't you think?

because he drove the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip. This was his answer to those who claimed that the Iraq invasion was un-Christian.

Of course, the Republicans are today's moneychangers who use religion for profit.

The other Gospels don't mention it. And even John doesn't say that he struck anyone with it.

Most scholars believe that John was written after Matthew, Mark and Luke. It may not be as accurate.

And remember that in John, Jesus enemies are the Jews (not just the Pharisees or Sadducee's). And it was John that Mel Gibson based his snuff movie on.

Many scholars believe that Jesus didn't actually say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" but that the writer of John recast his personal (or his group's) theology (i.e. "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life") so that it became something that Jesus said.

That's the only time I've ever read about Jesus getting all that loud or riled up, was in the temple.

So, we can go in with missiles and tanks because of that?!

If I live to be 100, I'll never understand the neocon mind...

Maybe. He didn't use bombs, napalm and a machine gun. He didn't
kill thousands of women and children.

How could anyone make that argument with a straight face. Jesus
CLEARLY taught a message of non-violence.

TJ

for you~!

>>>>> I recall reading in a Martin Marty book several years ago that Baptists, at least at one time, were against school prayer because they didn't want just anyone leading their children in prayer. <<<<


I was raised Baptist, and they can be one intolerant bunch!

And, I don't care for random people leading my children in prayer. Theological differences aside, I can give them that one.

differences among Baptists. I didn't mean to get your hackles up.

My own experience was with what a British friend of mine would call 'strict and particular Baptists', which is from a sign above a church door in his home town.

If your child attends a 'Christ on Campus' fellowship before or after school, will you interview the person conducting the meeting to be sure their POV coincides with your own?

Sacred holy war is quite harmfull metaphor to begin with, not because it is necessarily wrong but because it too easily leads to and opens up aggressive emotions. "Blessed are the peace-makers", that goes also for internal struggle.

Spurgeon goes wrong from the beginning, when he externalizes "Satan and error", condems part of his own soul as evil and the projects that evil into "infidelity" and "heresy", without realizing that only "Satan and error" that exists is by his own cultivation.

Spurgeon should remember the words "do not judge lest you be judged", because by his projection of "evil" he is judging himself to stay separated from True God.

D.L. Moody was also anti-war: "There has never been a time in my life when I felt I could take a gun and shoot down a fellow being. In this respect I am a Quaker." http://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/moodywar.html

The Plymouth Bretheren were the denomination that probably had more influence on the dispensationalism of today's evangelicals than any other, through the influence of the Scofield Reference Bible. They were also anti-war. Although not as staunchly so as the other Brethern groups, as they leave participation or not as a matter of individual conscience.

The Baptists claim descent from the Anabaptists, and some Baptists claim (see the book "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll) an unbroken line of Baptist beliefs going back to the time of Christ, handed down via other nonconformist sects during the Middle Ages like the Albigenses and Waldenses. All of those groups were nonconformist and pacifist. Yet today's Baptists aren't, I wonder why?

Most of the early major Pentecostal groups including the Assemblies of God and Church of God (Cleveland Tennessee) were anti-war at first, and encouraged their members to do alternative service during WWII. Yet they backed off from that position after WWII and today are among the loudest supporters of Bush's wars. I wonder why?

Mormons were originally pacifist but reversed their position under Brigham Young when some of the Mormons formed a batallion to fight in the Mexican War. Some of the tiny Mormon splinter groups (of the non-polygamist Midwestern branch - such as the Church of Christ- Temple Lot) are still pacifist but the main Mormon church in Utah is anything but.

Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, Holiness...the list goes on. Members of those churches should check their church's history regarding war and compare it to what they are being taught today.

I'm posting this as somebody who is not an evangelical of any kind anymore, but know a lot about evangelical history from past involvement. I've personally settled on Deism. One reason I want nothing to do with evangelicalism is those groups' wartime cheerleading and Bush-support that often goes against the historical teachings of their own founders. I find it hard to believe that any church could claim to be "pro-life" based on being anti-abortion (quite a stretch since there is no Biblical justification anywhere for the anti-abortion position), but won't extend that to opposition to war or capital punishment, which there most certainly are Biblical commands against. Or that any church would bother campaigning against alcohol, porn, premarital sex, or gambling, if they won't take a stand against what surely in God's eyes must be the most heinous sin of all, warfare.

When sociologists study new religions from an academic perspective (NRMs - New Religious Movements), they point out that new religions usually follow a pattern in which a new generation of leaders decides to "mainstream" the religion after the original founder(s) pass on. This means making compromises with the State to gain acceptance so the NRM is no longer seen as marginal or fringe. Pacifist or anti-war beliefs are often the first to go. Today they've become the Republican voting base. That fact alone speaks volumes about these groups - they're the very sort of pious hypocrites that Jesus denounced and would drive out of the temple today.

And for the thoughts. I've settled on Deism, as well. :-)

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44).