I'm Not a Superhero

Imagine a libertarian Christianity, which urged individuals to give away as much of their property as possible to the poor, to forget about the sex lives of their neighbors and focus on their own, to pray more than politic and to forgive more than to judge. Imagine, in other words, Christianity, and remind yourself how alien Christianism is to it.

—Andrew Sullivan (via azspot)

(via a-tasha)

holyspiritswag:

I first want to thank Justin for his inquiry; most Christians do not even question half of what Jesus’ commands could actually mean. So thanks. Also, I hope my approach is humble and demonstrates how naive humanity truly is, how truly naive I truly am. If analytic philosophy and analytic…

somuchdependsupon:

Sorry that a couple of sections are heteronormative. I didn’t even realize I’d done that until it was too late.

The comments section is ALREADY a quagmire, and the post went up an hour ago. WHOOOO.

My response to sonofastoryteller:

Before I say anything, I have to say that this isn’t a complete argument for or against pacivism. Quite frankly, this is a topic I’ve only recently begun to think about (due to the words and works of my friends Landon, Russ, and Chase), and I’m not sure I’ve spent enough time in that frame to…

Let me begin with the significance of your spelling error. Passivism seems to be much close to what you’re describing here. Absolute passivism is non-interference of any kind. It’s keeping at a distance. It’s sitting on one’s ass while the world goes down in flames.

That’s not pacifism.

Pacifism is (roughly) the belief that all life is worthy of respect. Pacifism in the bounds of Jesus following is taking seriously Christ’s commands to “love your neighbor” and the higher call to “love your enemy.” It’s recognizing that no Christian could be involved in a project that seeks to take a life and simultaneously be loving that life’s person at the same time. (Shocking, but this point has been argued. However, I simply won’t agree that in the context of war/retributive justice, “Sometimes the most loving thing you can do for a person is to take their life” — especially when dealing with a non-believer. Though, I’m even inclined to agree with your statement: “On the argument of “Well your brother is saved, so him losing his life isn’t really an issue” I might have to call bullshit.”) 

So what of degreed protection of your brother?

“If I must assume the posture of violence (not murder) to protect my brother’s life, wouldn’t that be adhering to the strictest degree of the sanctity of life? That I did everything in my power to protect the value of life?” (emphasis mine)

Pacifism is active. I do believe that a paficist is obligated to step in and interfere and that might include with (some amount of) violence. My pacifist policy when interfering with violence is “I die first.” So, if the hypothetical attacker who always seems to be breaking into pacifists’ homes and beating up on their wives and kids is beating up on my brother (who is taller than me, btw), I feel I have an obligation to step in. May I use my 15 years of martial arts training here? I believe I may. This may be a point that a pacifist might argue with, but I believe that pacifism may allow for some degree of defense.

This belief is grounded in the command to “Love your enemy.” To love someone is to seek their well being. It’s never in someone’s best interest to kill another person. So, to seek the well being of an attacker, I believe, is to go to some reasonable lengths to restrain the attacker from killing; to care for the attacker’s soul is to prevent this attacker from the damage that comes to one’s soul when one kills a human being.

[Let me pause here and say this hypothetical only works at the individual level. Violence when militaries are involved always includes death and the ending of life. My view of Christ-centered pacifism always precludes the violence of war.]

“Violence begets violence” as the saying goes. Returning blow for blow continues the downward whirlpool which seeks to drown all those who decide to wade through it. In communication theory, we talk about a concept called a “communication spiral.” This cyclical spiral argues that communication patterns will continue south until someone chooses to do something different. You’re in a heated yelling match with your S.O.? That will continue to escalate until someone changes the pattern: goes on a walk, sits down for a breather, says “I’m sorry” — or like the movies have us believe — rip each other’s clothes off and embrace in hyperbolic passion. 

The circle continues. You beat up the attacker for beating up your brother, then his brother beats up you, then your son beats up him, then his son beats up you…

Pacifism is the belief that someone needs to stop the spiral. Receive a blow instead of give one. Choose to stand in the middle rather than engage the other side. Love rather than continue the cycle of hate.

Why? Because this is what Christ did for us. When we hated him, he loved. He loved so much so that he died. It doesn’t make sense, it seems idealistic and absolutist. But in this, he defeated death. And I believe we are called to the same.

Beautiful. Click to read on…

hallelu:

I’m not even sure whom I’m attracted to, or
Whom I was ever attracted to, but curiously
I do know two things. Call them sexuality bi
me. You may have similar thoughts. Perhaps
you have homo-thoughts, I’m hoping this is
the case. Because I believe a Better World can
come when we stop being…