Thanks for a good strong push back, and good questions. You said;

Does the fact that we’re commanded to be like that affect whether or not policemen, etc., are necessary? Are we to call for them to be disbanded, or to prevent them from functioning? Or do we operate separately from the whole thing?

My answer: Yes and no and everything in between. I think the truth is found in the details. Are policeman necessary? I’d say they serve a role that’s important. Another relevant question is; Do policemen have to carry lethal weaponry? There are a multitude of ways to throttle a suspected criminal that aren’t lethal, and money should be poured into further research efforts on that end. Rubber bullets and tasers are a start, though they can be lethal. I would suggest non-lethal ways of coercion by police forces brings together some good thinking from different ends of the spectrum; strength as a deterrent, non-lethal in respect of human life. If I had legitimate assurance that I could serve in such a non-lethal way, I could conceive of being a policeman.

In the meantime, they’re often not (though examples do exist of persons and police-forces doing this very thing). So, if the maintenance of lethal force is a non-negotiable, I’d say Christians should cease and desist from police service. There are plenty of secular folks without the built-in call to “love your enemies” willing to fill those ranks. So we do our things, they do their thing, and we hold each other to each others’ best convictions.

Jesus told rich people to give their money away. He told prostitutes to go and sin no more. But even though the gospels contain accounts of him interacting with Roman soldiers, we don’t see him say anything like that…Did Jesus love the money-changers when he was forcefully driving them out of the temple courtyard? Uh, yeah, but that’s some tough love.

Shaky ground, REAL shaky ground there with the Roman soldiers comment there, Derek. First off, it’s an argument from silence, since I could just as easily argue that Jesus didn’t explicitly tell them their role was honorable. But if we’re thinking implicitly, as we have to in this case because you spoke rightly, what do you think Jesus’ approach would have been if a Roman soldier decided to become a disciple. I think we need to run it through the grid I spoke of in an above post;
First, what did Jesus teach? Second, how did Jesus exemplify that teaching (so we can know if he was using more figurative or rhetorical language or actually expected simple obedience)?
And third, how did those of his disciples considered “faithful” act in following his example?

Historically speaking, the answer is clear. I think you might have some idea about what that was.

And the Temple incident is a good case to look at how Jesus’ teaching intersected with his example. I’m presently going through an ongoing struggle with this myself. Jesus taught, “Do not resist evil,” which would lead a follower (without any other leading) to believe, as some fellow Anabaptists of mine do, that this means no physical action to intervene. Yet Jesus entered the temple and overturned table and drove out the animals with the whip and called the merchants there to account. Was this an example of physical resistance of evil? I would say yes!!! Does this take the teaching “Do not resist evil” out of a simple “Do not physically intervene” sort of arena into a gray area? I think so. But an equally important element of this act was the reality that Jesus’ action was non-lethal. He didn’t slide knives into ribs or crush peoples’ skulls into the courtyard floor.

And what ultimately comes out of Jesus’ teaching and example with this sort of teaching? An encounter (after Jesus’ rebuke of Peter’s sword in the Garden) with Pilate where Jesus says,

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight (read: violently protest with lethal action) to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

And the disciples followed that teaching and example with their lives afterwards.

And as far as the “personal conviction” line of thought, I don’t have a problem with that in lesser, more gray areas (like eating food or choosing to either drink or abstain from alcoholic drinks or to either marry or stay single). But in areas where Jesus has spoken clearly, personal conviction exists on a level subject to Biblical teaching such that personal conviction (tainted by our sinful selfishness more often than not) submits. I believe duties that required lethal action by a person fall under that.

And Derek, the 20th/21st century question is far from irrelevant, because if we take the position that lethal action is somehow justified, then we have to ask some serious questions today. One might be;

“How does my conviction that war could be just in certain cases intersect with the interests of the nation I am a citizen of?” Why is that important? Because nations have a vested interest in making their action look justified and sanctified. Anyone could justify any military action if they were willing to hop through enough hoops. The U.S. is just as good or better at that propaganda as Chavez in Venezuela or Stalin in the USSR.

Another question; “If I think lethal action is justified in some cases, how does that intersect with my limited perspective on what is ‘good’ and ‘righteous’ or who is ‘evil’ and who is ‘good’?” I have been raised in certain communities to think certain ways about the world, and that’s not necessarily (and often isn’t) the “right” perspective. It’s limited and enculturated. So if I’m willing to kill another human being, I should be sure that what I’m doing is clean and tidy and within the limits of justice. The problem you run into is that you don’t know whether the person on the business end of your gun is “guilty” or not; and ultimately, given the nature of modern warfare, both you and that person are pawns used by more powerful people to achieve their ends, not the protectors of what is just and right. Are you willing to lay down your arms and face the punishment of insubordination if you believe an action is unjust, whether you’re patrolling Fallujah or Compton?

There’s a whole host of questions that should be, must be, brought to bear in this discussion. Unfortunately, this discussion is not taking place in any full sense amongst Christians in America, so people have become ok with what Dobson is spoonfeeding them. And what he’s spoonfeeding them is religious syncretism, a bastardized faith that isn’t Christian in any consistent sense of the word.

I run most everything through the grid I’ve set up now to ensure that I’m not co-opted by conservative orliberal agendas. We have been lied to by both sides, and we have been lied to by our government, and we are manipulated through multiple channels each day with powerful persons at the controls to think in certain ways about the world. Knowing this, that we are “buying units” or simply a demographic or number for these persons, we should be very wary about impassioned speeches about “protecting” country A or people B or “liberating” country C or people D; because 99% of the time, the interests are rooted in provincial, self-serving, others-dominating interests.
Last I checked, God calls those things sin. And we know what happens when these sorts of interests are pursued over the long haul. We serve a God slow to anger and quick in love, but his wrath knows no quarter when he reaches the limit of his patience.

Jesus told rich people to give their money away. He told prostitutes to go and sin no more. But even though the gospels contain accounts of him interacting with Roman soldiers, we don’t see him say anything like that.

And remember, we’re talking about the same Jesus that made a whip when he drove out the money-changers. I think it’s a little more complicated than how you’re describing it. Did Jesus love the money-changers when he was forcefully driving them out of the temple courtyard? Uh, yeah, but that’s some tough love.

My comments about “personal conviction” have to do with recently studying Romans 14. There’s a certain amount of graciousness were are called to provide to other believers who have a strong conviction about something. I’m not sure if that applies to someone who has a strong conviction to protect others by serving in police units or in the military, but I’m wondering about it.

If I seem like I’m trying to focus on the policeman part, it’s because I’m trying to get to the more foundational issues, still. And I still think a detailed discussion of 20th/21st century military actions would be a little pointless based on the positions. For now, I’ll leave that discussion with what I said earlier – you’ll get little disagreement from me that many of the specific actions and tactics used were inappropriate. What I mean in my original statement was that the major effort of these campaigns was protection-oriented, not oriented towards conquering others.

“Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.”

Speaking of the present, worldly governments are VERY relevant, yet also illegitimate…because they’re out busying themselves with extending their territories and name at the expense of God’s name. The distinction you’ve made, Derek, only makes sense when artificially abstracted from reality and talked about. Of course the Roman church wasn’t seeking to feed to be subversive, they were acting out of obedience. But that doesn’t deny the fact that their act was inherently subversive, and the Roman emperor acknowledged that.

Again, the Roman emperors wouldn’t have subjected the Christians to such heavy persecution if there wasn’t an inherent subversive quality to their proclamation of Jesus as Lord.

Without the credible threat of force, there’s no way to prevent mass chaos in a sinful world. On either a community or a global scale. I guess that’s fine if you’re an anarchist. And I think it’s fine to have the personal conviction to not use force, and to not want to participate in systems that do (like the military, police services, etc.)…Is it wrong for a follower of Christ to be a policeman? To be in the military? Is it wrong for us to participate in these worldly systems?

Derek, I respectfully disagree, and the disagreement comes at the fundamental level of our positions, like you spoke of earlier. Your thoughts are rooted in a political and sociological approach to addressing evil, while mine are rooted in the clear, unequivocal teaching of Jesus. I say your foundation is fundamentally flawed, because it’s rooted in what is “common sense” outside the realm of what God calls into question.

On a common sense level (if we’re thinking radically short-term), of course it makes sense to restrain evil through force. But if you see the effects of warfare on the populace, on economies, on social and political capital, and on generational ethnic hatred and deep wounding, then the picture becomes more complex. So today we have a definitely uneasy “Pax Americana.” What’s going to happen when America is no longer the most powerful nation in the world and others (who we have repressed and subjected to our dominion) rise into that place? This “peace” (aka foot on the throat of the other) suddenly turns and the enmity is expressed.

This is a clear historical truth right before our eyes. You can see it in Africa now as the former colonies are struggling to figure out who they are now following decades and centuries of their colonizers playing tribal rivalries off on each other. And I have no doubt that this will continue to be business as usual for secular world governments with a stake in their own people’s security, comfort, and affluence.

That’s why I answer your question with a resounding YES! It IS wrong for a follower of Christ to be a policeman and be in the military or any other occupation that takes lethal action against other human beings. We claim to be followers of Jesus, and thus we are accountable for following his teaching and example, and he took the punishment of humanity’s deep rebellion on himself and died and resurrection to show both the short-sighted, selfish nature of the way the world acts AND through resurrection that, ultimately, there is nothing in this world that prevents us from simple obedience to his expectations. When we step between those in conflict (whether on the playground or in local relationships or on a battlefield) with a hunger for reconciliation and a trust that no one can take anything away from us, even if they take our life, we break the cycle of violence, and even if the effects are not immediately and readily seen, we give a testament to a different kind of people, a different kind of world, and a different kind of vision for who we’re meant to be. And by we I mean all the world.

I highlighted your word “personal” to make a point. Personal convictions may be individual, but they are not private and individualistic. All thoughts, speech, and actions take place in the context of the surrounding world and affect the surrounding world; and this reality should call into question the idea that anything is “true for me, but not true for you.”

I don’t think it’s hard at all to make judgment calls on other people’s convictions in this regard, and frankly, I don’t care about these people’s stories and the spirit behind their convictions if their primary story isn’t God’s story and their primary spirit isn’t God’s spirit.

The primary questions in this matter are; Has Jesus spoken clearly on this matter? Did his example reinforce that part of his teaching clearly? Did he expect his disciples to follow? It is settled. Go and do likewise.

No amount of sociological or political conviction about what is “necessary” is relevant when Jesus has spoken, Niebuhr or Gustafson or Bush or Dobson or Augustine or Luther be damned.