“Do not repay anyone evil for evil… as much as lies within you, live peacably with all men… Do not take revenge… ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give hime drink’… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:17-21).

We’re only supposed to feed our enemy when he’s persecuting us? Absurd.

Are there any examples of when one wouldn’t turn the other cheek, or is your point that simply by being a Christian believer we are inherently and always to be non-aggressors? And if so, I guess I am still confused as to how the stuff of, say, the “just war” theory coming out of Christendom can be pointed to as a good thing. Everything so far I have heard you say seems to be quite positive about the “Christian take over of culture,” yet by saying “It seems like there is never a time in the real world to exercise this selfless obedience [meaning turn the other cheek and hand the man your tunic] to Christ” you then also seem to imply we ought not act so aggressively. So which is it? This seems like an inherent conundrum when the kingdoms are so conflated. Instead of trying to be comfortable with the weirdness of being at once a citizen of two kingdoms, one has to go through these strained contortions to make his existence in the one kingdom work. So just tell me, can I lop off the centurion’s ear or should I sheath my sword? When I actually do read the Bible, this question is answered quite clearly and doesn’t demand I bend every which way.

Steve

No. Read your Bible.

Steve writes, “Are you saying that not only is it possible to ‘live up to the radical demands of the law to their fullest extent’ but that some actually have? How in the world does this square with conventional Protestant theology?”

I don’t believe that Christ’s commands are law in the sense that you imagine. They transcend the law (pure justice) and enter into doing good to others beyond what they deserve. This is grace. I’m not going to defend it here at length, but I believe there have been and are now people living who are completely filled with Christ’s love for others. Their lives are completely sacrificial. This does not mean they do everything perfectly however (though God sees it so in Christ).

Would the answer possibly be quite narrow, i.e., when being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel? I would assume Mrs. Hart’s being smacked has nothing to do with the Gospel but because she may have sent back her soup. In which case, her husband’s choice of response is up to him. I would hope he’d show a tad more restraint than getting into a brawl. But there is nothing wrong with invoking the principle’s of the city of man in such a situation, including the physical protection of another. I hear pacifism coming down thr rails. Are we to take the other cheek commandment to promote pacifism? And, if so, what do we make of your positive appeals to “just war” theories coming out of Christendom? There are charges of anabaptism for this side of the table; but are they not the pacifists? If there was an interest in pacifism, why does Darryl have no bones about “whaling on the guy”? (Though I am myself no rabid anti-abortionists who thinks the ills of the world will be solved by its demise yet is still anti-abortion [not pro-life]), shall we turn the other cheek when it comes to the abortionist, telling the unborn that we owed their enemies our tunics? Much as some want to lend the politics of something like abortion divine weight and sanction, it still has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel. Neither getting cracked on the head protesting it nor marching on Selma has one iota to do with the Gospel, no matter how heavy laden the religio-language attending it. It all falls into the city of man and folks may choose their sides. You can’t apply KoG principles to the KoM. Simply turning the other cheek does not a believer make. Don’t plenty of Buddhist monks willingly get cracked on the skull by their own government? It seems to me that when you collapse the kingdoms you make Christian behavioral commands more descriptive than prescriptive, so that anyone who performs these things can claim Christian-hood. But while Christinaity has resident within it a way of life, it most certainly is not a way of life.

We resist, then, those who oppose the Gospel narrowly.

“Finally, I understand these commands by the Lord as not mere law but transcending law: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me” (Matt. 19:21). “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matt. 19:12)…I recognize that most of the time people are not able to follow Jesus’ radical demands to their fullest extent. (The few that do are usually beatified as RC saints.) However, his love will be manifest in their lives: There will be moments of truth when a true disciple will imitate Christ in his life.”

Wait. Are you saying that not only is it possible to “live up to the radical demands of the law to their fullest extent” but that some actually have? How in the world does this square with conventional Protestant theology?

Steve

This statement is not balanced. He chose Paul, for instance, possibly an unsightly fellow but an intellectual whiz. He chose Isaac, whom the Philistines begged to leave them because he was too powerful for them. And on and on.

The above statement is too conflicted. Here’s a better statement concerning this era:

Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. (Mark 10:29-30)

Sounds like we should expect “persecutions” right along with better stuff “in this time.” Statistically you might experience far more of one than the other, but apparently both are to be the lot of God’s people.

In other words, you say that you act according to the principles of the city of man when threatened. I have a question, then: In what contexts do you follow our Lord’s commands to “not resist an evil person,” “turn the other cheek,” and “give your tunic to the man who wants to sue you”? It seems like there is never a time in the real world to exercise this selfless obedience to Christ.

My own way I’ve dealt with these “hard” sayings has been to understand that the freer one is from worldly commitments (i.e., spouse, children, subjects), the freer one is to lay down one’s life in following the Lord’s example (Cf. 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35). There is self-sacrifice and humility that is appropriate to kings, another appropriate to parents, another appropriate to husbands, and another appropriate to single unattached people.

Additionally, it takes spiritual discernment to know how to respond best in any given situation & often special grace is given at crucial moments.

Finally, I understand these commands by the Lord as not mere law but transcending law: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me” (Matt. 19:21). “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matt. 19:12).

I recognize that most of the time people are not able to follow Jesus’ radical demands to their fullest extent. (The few that do are usually beatified as RC saints.) However, his love will be manifest in their lives: There will be moments of truth when a true disciple will imitate Christ in his life.

It should be clear by now that just as Christians are not prohibited from entering into Christian marriage, so they are not prohibited from seeking a Christian state. Both arrangements are proper to this present age that is passing away, but both are necessary now.

The power of the sword is necessary for maintaining order in the present age. Just as Christians are not absolutely prohibited from using force to defend themselves and are (usually) positively obligated to in defense of others, so a Christian state is not prohibited but obligated to use force to maintain order & protect its people.

I’m interested to read your reaction in regard to these thoughts.

Hutchens writes: “There has been something very wrong about how the gospel is so often interpreted among us—wrong because it is not the will of God that we should be the weak and passive things, the welcomers of shame and of death and of inferiority and imperfection that we so frequently are, the excuse being that we are put into the world to decrease and die. There is a lie hidden in the way that the call to die is all too frequently understood, the lie being a Christological heresy having to do with the denial of Christ the perfect and the perfected man, and our duty to live as those who are “in him.”

“For whilst it is true that we are here to die, we are put here first to live.”
(S. M. Hutchens, “Fully Living Sacrifices,” Touchstone, (The Fellowship of St. James: Chicago, IL) July/August 2007, p. 4.

This is why it makes perfect sense: it’s holiness in my corner of the world, by faith alone. It’s lowly, because it’s just my corner of the world. One of the ways it starts is by loving God with everything I have, and demonstrating that love by talking about His Word regarding every context before my children. But loving God with all I have is keeping at least the First Table of the Law, which I cannot do. Yet by sanctification, God enables.

Giving up on Christendom is giving up on living holy in every context of life where God leads us.

You are exactly right. When someone hits my wife, I do not ask her to turn the other cheek but I haul off and whale on the guy (or at least I talk tough on the Internet). I do not try to be poor because they are blessed but I try to acquire enough wealth to provide for my wife and me. And I don’t first cite pastors in my historical work but try to marshal the best sources and interact with the leading authorities.

So if God acts differently than the way we do, in what sense is the great and mighty and glorious Christendom actually Christian? It didn’t get that way by asking what Jesus would do, because what he did leads in a different direction. For this reason, I’ve arguing we need to give up the idea of Christian civilization or society. It doesn’t make sense.