Pacifist…or Sissy?

I have never considered myself a pacifist. I grew up in the 80s and 90s playing with toy guns and video games, watching the “heroes” in movies take out the bad guys…and like any boy in his right mind I wanted to be a “hero,” too.

But, lately I have been seriously reconsidering my boyhood position. I am hesitant to call the only alternative “pacifism.” Maybe because the boy in me doesn’t want to be a sissy. Maybe because the word brings up thoughts of doing nothing, and I certainly don’t advocate that. Maybe because all the world seems to disagree.

My questions began flowing as I studied the kingdom of God that John the Baptist heralded and Jesus preached. They could all be summed up in this, I think: if I, as a Christian, am a citizen in the kingdom of heaven, then how can I be loyal to any other kingdom? Of course, Jesus’ intriguing statements about turning the other cheek played a part: if I am to be loyal to Jesus, my King, then when and how often does He expect me to turn the other cheek? And Isaiah’s prophecy about Christ’s kingdom that mentions “neither shall they learn war any more” certainly grabbed my attention (Isa 2:4): if I am to be loyal to the kingdom of heaven, how can I learn war?

As I have studied it and thought about it I still remain undecided on so many levels. The “what ifs” always come up with this question, and I don’t have answers to them yet, and don’t expect to any time soon.

But, here is a question that came to mind that has really got me thinking…and I would like to know what you think. First, you have to agree with two premises that I think you will be fine with, but just to make sure:

Do you believe it is wrong to “evangelize” by military force? Is it wrong to use military might to advance Christianity?

If you answered no…then don’t bother with the next question; we can discuss it if you’d like, but that discussion is outside the realm of this article.

If you answered yes…then proceed to the next question:

Do you agree that Christianity is a greater, more important cause than nation, democracy, freedom, or any other that you could name?

If you answered no…then, again, we can discuss, but not in this blog; don’t worry about the final question.

If you answered yes…then, proceed to the final round:

If it is wrong to use military force in advancing Christianity, then how can it be right to use military force to advance any lesser agenda/system/way of life/cause, such as nation, freedom or democracy (or, fill in the _________ )?


39 thoughts on “Pacifist…or Sissy?

  1. Boy, Clint…what a topic – a good one and one I have debated in my head many times.

    Please define military force? By what means would this be? On one hand I see the need to use force but where do we draw the lines? Are there any lines in warfare?

  2. Also, should we expose those who are our enemy? I named many on one post that I consider “the enemy.” How should we attack the enemy?

    Well dude, I have three 5 year olds running around 🙂

    I will ttyl.

    – Randy

  3. The church’s duty has always been to confront skepticism and answer it by clearly proclaiming the truth God has revealed in His Word. We have been given a clear message for the purpose of confronting the world’s unbelief. That is what we are called, commanded, and commissioned to do (1 Corinthians 1:17–31). Faithfulness to Christ demands it. The honor of God requires it. We cannot sit by and do nothing while worldly, revisionist, and skeptical attitudes about truth are infiltrating the church. We have to stand and fight for the truth—and be prepared to die for it—as faithful Christians always have. But, how do we will use force – by what means?

    I will check back later today.

    Take care

  4. I give you of example: We have a local cofC assembly here, in my town, that has one preacher ( Johnny Robertson ). He will go into other denominations armed with a audio/Cam-corder and ask questions of the pastor in front of the entire congregation. Note: he doesn’t interrupt them but waits till an appreciate time to ask questions. As you can guess, he has been forced out too. He then takes this back to our local TV station and he airs the questions to the viewers of the station, which reach into two States. He also confronts evolutionist and others the same way. He films preachers driving their high-dollar cars, some which range upwards to $100,000. He calls their names out for all to hear and offers the local denominational pastors free air-time to debate their denominational doctrines. He has made many enemies doing this, even was chased one night at speeds topping 100 miles per hour. One denominational pastors wife threaten to shoot him and their daughter threatened to beat his head to the white meat, and one night these threats were so bad on his live call in show that the police were called and the station was put on lock down. I have mixed feelings about his approach and it often seems to just anger people, but at the same time he causes so much drama that it makes people wipe the dust from their bibles to attempt to prove him wrong. And some have wiped the dust off, only to discover that he was right about many things. He uses force and it angers many, but it makes many search for the truth…………some feel he goes too far, while others encourage him……

  5. Hey Randy,

    What I mean by “military force” is injuring and/or killing others to advance a cause; violence. As for the methods you mentioned of calling pastors out and such, I do disagree with that method, but on different, albeit related, grounds.

    I agree, we as Christians must “contend for the faith.” But, how do we do that? With the sword, or with the Sword? With force, or with the word of God? Jesus specifically denounced the use of force when he spoke to His disciples about not lording it over others, but becoming servants…and when He told them that if He as the Teacher would suffer, then they as disciples would suffer. This is the same idea in Romans when Paul advocates heaping burning coals on the heads of our “enemies” by loving them. The power is in Jesus and the gospel, not in “horses and chariots.”

    Now, I agree that we ought to stir things up a bit…not with our methods, but with our message. The cross and the way of Jesus are offensive to the world, so if we are faithfully living and preaching them there will be trouble…but I don’t think we ought to go looking for trouble. Being a servant and loving even our enemies precludes that methodology. Besides, Paul also said to do our best to live at peace with all men.

    Thanks for your questions and comments.


  6. I thought you were really saying “military force” as in using violence…just making sure. I personally think this would cut against the grain of what Christianity is about. I believe we are to use Gods Word as the weapon and not “our might.” As you stated we should “contend for the faith.” But our weapons are not of this world.

  7. Randy,

    So, we are agreed about not using violence to spread the greatest cause of all…

    Now, then, my question is…
    is it okay to use violence to spread lesser causes?
    If it is not good enough for the greatest cause, why is it good enough for lesser causes?

    What do you think?

  8. John 18:36-37 “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Pilate therefore said to Him,’So You are a King/’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.'” NASB

    Because God’s kingdom is not a physical kingdom we do not fight physically. Since it is a spiritual kingdom we fight spiritually. To turn evangelism into a physical fight is to reduce its effectiveness. But, as Stephen can testify (Acts 7), presenting the truth may cause physical consequences. Our spiritual war is intended to save souls not to make or embarrass enemies. It would seem that Mr. Johnny Robertson’s approach does more to create physical conflict, than show spiritual decay.

    Eph. 4:15 “But, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ” NKJV

  9. Hey Nathan,

    Good to hear from you. I like what you had to say, and agree 100%.

    Now, what do you say about “other circumstances”…outside of evangelism? Or is there such a thing for the Christian? Is war/violence okay for supporting other causes if it is not okay for supporting Christianity?

    I’ll put you on the spot…and you can punch me at Ryan’s in a couple weeks if you want. I promise to turn the other cheek.

  10. I think so, if the cause is legit. I dont always agree with our “war games” – the way we seem to police the world.

    If someone were breaking into my house, should I protect my family? I will be direct as possible – I would shoot to kill!

    If someone is wanting to harm our nation, should we protect ourselves? I think so. Even strike first in some cases.

  11. Randy,

    I guess this still goes back to the initial question…

    If Christianity is not a “legit” enough cause for violence, then what makes other, lesser causes “legit”?

  12. The verse most commonly brandished when arguing a pacifist point is Matt. 5:39. Do not resist evil. While the intent of this is to emphasize a social obligation, it is most often interpreted as a CIVIC duty that should dictate our behavior in all circumstances. Some use this passage to argue against Capitol punishment and against war. I guess I am playing the common sense card here, not verses to back what I say. I think you would do the same if someone broke into your home and you thought they were going to harm you and your family. You would use whatever force available to protect your wife and kid, as would I.

    Do we retaliate with violence when insulted? Hardly not. Should we, as Christians, abandon every possible means for our defense and the defense of our loved ones when threatened with physical violence? Would that make us the evil?

    If a person walking down the street is attacked, should they turn the other cheek or defend themselves? What should they do? Strictly speaking one never uses violence to defend oneself. That’s an oxymoron. Violence is the tool of the aggressor, not of the defender. It is how you apply it that determines if it is violence or not. Force can be a necessary and valuable tool — especially against violence. To be a pacifist, you must be peaceful. And that means you don’t use violence to get what you want. To be peaceful you strive for calm and tranquility; within in your mind, within your spirit, within your emotions and attitudes, within your words and within your behavior. You project peace, not violence. In short, being pacifistic means that we do not engage in any kind of violence, but does this include protecting our family?

    Politically correct thinking would have us believe that any kind of violence is wrong. Often we use their pacifism as a self-righteous weapon, especially against those whose job it is to use force to protect others and keep the peace.

    If a person had been attacked, and they never caught the attacker…then one day the victim sees the attacker doing the same thing to someone else…should they defend the new victim, is there an option to use violence or not? What should they do?

    Praying for my enemies and giving grace to my enemies does not mean that I allow them to break into my home and harm my family.

    It seems to me if someone advocates total nonviolence they don’t believe we should have police officers or even a military. I think most people would use violence or force if they had a legit cause. Do I have scripture to support my view? Nope. Will I protect my family from people who seek to harm them? Yep. And, I think you would too.

    A tuff post to reply to, Clint 🙂

  13. …. men kidnapped Lot, the patriarch Abraham’s nephew. Abraham organized a militia and by force of arms rescued Lot from his kidnappers (Gen. 14:12 ).

    Exodus 22:2-3 tells us “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” The context of this verse is dealing with theft and restitution and gives us a basis for God’s law of Self-Defense.

    King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God “Who trains my hand for war and my fingers for battle” (Psalm 144:1).

    “So Moses spoke to the people, saying, ‘Arm some of yourselves for the war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian'” (Numbers 31:3).

  14. Randy,

    As to your second comment with scripture references…

    But Isa 2:4 says that in the new kingdom we will not learn war any more.

    As to your first comment…

    I sympathize with the common sense card…it is essentially what keeps me on the fence. But, if that is all that there is to keep me there, then how do I justify following my own common sense rather than Jesus’ teachings? This is my struggle with the violence issue in general. I know common sense tells me to defend myself and my family with force…but where does that “sense” come from? Is it not from the world rather than from God? From below rather than above?

    Now, if you are attacked I definitely don’t advocate doing nothing. We are specifically told to do something, and that is to love and pray for our enemies…to heap burning coals of kindness on their heads. If that is not common sense, then, well, I will choose God’s instructions over my own common sense.

    As for what I would do if my family were threatened..I don’t know for sure until I am there I suppose…but my current thinking is this:
    1) If I kill an intruder I am probably sending them to hell, but if I or my wife or daughter dies then we are headed for heaven….can I justify saving the life of the redeemed to send a man to hell?
    2) My wife in our discussions on this has told me that she would rather die and go to heaven than have me send a person to hell to protect her life.
    3) If it comes to their life or mine, for me to choose mine by killing them is to say that my life is more valuable than theirs, which is prideful.
    4) For me to respond with force is to deny that Jesus seems to be saying we ought to respond with love, and to argue that it is common sense that we defend ourselves with force is to argue that we don’t need to take Jesus seriously.
    5) If Jesus defended Himself…ever…he would have denied His very purpose as the Suffering Servant and the Sacrificial Lamb….and I am called to be like Him.
    6) To admit that force is authorized in civic or self-defense scenarios is to say that my Christian life is separate from my secular life, since, as we have agreed, force (violent) is not authorized in spreading the cause of Christ. My whole life is supposed to be devoted to spreading the cause of Christ.

    As for police and military….Paul’s instructions about how we are to respond to government seem to indicate that God has given governments authority to use force in at least some circumstances. I’m not sure if this applies to military or just police. The interesting thing, though, is that in that context, Romans 13, Paul draws a distinction between his Christian audience and the government God uses to forcefully punish wrong.

    Well, there are some thoughts for now…let me know what you think.


  15. The last thing I would want to do is take another life, but if put in a situation like that we are all most likely to do what we think we would not. Your question is one I find difficult to answer and one that makes for a good study. I suppose the right thing to do would be allow someone break in my home, possibly kill my kids and wife, and let the theif run away in hopes that the poilce catch him and then maybe he will get the electric chair or life. Na….I wouldn’t do that. I would end up sinning and taking the theifs life, before I allow him to take my kids life. It may sound bad, even be bad…but I am being honest.

    What if I am a police offier ( Christain ) and someone shoots at me, can I not defend myself? This pacifist view means those in law enforcment better have desk jobs or be willing to be like Andy :)and not carry a gun.

  16. Randy,

    Just take Barney along and give him his one bullet.

    I don’t know what it means for police officers. I know what John the Baptist told some soldiers…but then He was heralding the new kingdom, not outlining its laws as Jesus did.

    I, personally, could not be a police officer and a Christian. But, I can’t say that I can bind that on others.

    Here is something that bothers me a bit though…and you are by far not the only one I have heard it from: “It may sound bad, even be bad…but I am being honest.” It’s the idea of, “I know what Jesus says, but I am going to do something else.” And I know we all struggle with that in different areas…but to maintain that attitude seems to be dangerous for a Christian. And the whole point is that we are to “renew our minds,” change our thinking, learn to act and react differently.

    Am I being to harsh? Or do you agree that that kind of response is something we need to overcome and grow out of?

  17. If you seen another person attempting to harm a new born, would you 1) turn away; 2) ask him politely to please not do that; 3) stop him?

    In theory, we might hold a pacifist view, but when faced with real life circumstances, I think most of us would use force to stop someone from harming a new born. And, in other circumstances, we would do what we think we would not…

    I understand what you mean by renewing our minds, but put in a situation we might find ourselves to be weak and unable to do what we know is right. I know its wrong to take another life, but in certain situations I think I would drop the ball. I would hope a way out other than force/self defense…if not, I honestly couldn’t allow my kids life to be taken if I could stop it.

    I use to have a bad habit of picking up hitch-hackers and people broke down, thinking they needed some help. Two years ago, a woman who appeared distressed was trying to flag down cars. I pulled over ( my wife with me ) to help and she ask if I could take her down the road. This woman wanted me to take her one way, but something inside of me sensed something wrong. I wouldn’t turn the direction she ask and turned right instead of left and pulled off the road, she jumped out and another car pulled in behind me and picked her up. They obviously were going to rob me if I went the direction she ask. I am glad that I didn’t take her the direction she ask, because I could have been put in this situation we speak about now.

    Btw, that broke me from picking up strangers. 🙂

  18. Randy,

    I don’t know what I would do for sure until I was there…and so i understand what you mean be theory and the real world…

    But, unless the principles of God become a part of our lives and how we make decisions then they will do use no good. God’s word does no good unless it is applicable in the real world.

    Now, I do think we should be wise…about hitch-hikers and such….but not stop serving. I wrote an article about this recently, Don’t Do Nothing…just a few before this one.

  19. I do believe Jesus was 100% pacifist and most of the early Christians too. Many made those choices, that I just find hard to do…watched their love ones slaughtered. You make some real good points !!

    Got to go for now.


    – Randy

  20. Will do….I will probably hit on it some when I go through the Sermon on the Mount here pretty soon….but it may take me some time to get there, and I won’t be going through all of the aspects, obviously…but i’ll let you know.

  21. Clint,

    I appreciate your honest approach to this. Like you, I cannot reconcile the idea of being a police officer and being a Christian. And you are right that we cannot impose our consciences on others.

    Randy’s examples are good ones. I think in cases where defenseless people are being attacked the scripture “He that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin.” may apply, as well as “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

    One of God’s greatest complaints was Israel’s neglect of the poor, the widowed and orphans. So, since we know we are to care for these who have no other support, where do we draw the line? Will we feed and clothe them, but not protect them?

    I do not believe Christians should volunteer for combat against an enemy of the state unless that enemy is at hand and immediately threatening the safety of our fellow citizens. Defensive combat seems to be allowable in some respects. But, even conscientious objectors contribute to any military action when they haul ammo, food, supplies, and drive ambulances. This fits into the same “us against them” mentality whether one carries a gun or not.

    This is a subject that has caused me a lot of distress. When Paul says “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” what exactly does this pertain to? If an intruder breaks into my house and is not threatening violence, but only asks for money and valuables, I believe I would cooperate. But, if they should threaten and intend violence against my wife or children, or my neighbor aren’t I obligated by the law iof loving my neighbor as myself to do what i can to resist such a thing, even by violence?

    Why does God leave this to each of us to figure out for himself? I don’t know about you, but I have done many things on the spur of the moment that I wish I could re-do. These kind of situations are ones I would not want to have regrets about later.

  22. PK,

    Let me address, for the sake of discussion…or maybe just to be difficult, some of your comments..

    You said: I think in cases where defenseless people are being attacked the scripture “He that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin.” may apply, as well as “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

    I say: I have trouble using these two scriptures in this way…mainly because of the definition of “good.” Who says that it is good to use violent force to defend? A lot of people take it as common sense, I suppose, but why? And what does scripture say about it? It seems Jesus taught against it.

    Now, what seems obvious to me, and maybe not to others, is that the statement “overcome evil with good” seems to be saying that we are not to use the methods that we are attacked with. We do not battle against flesh and blood; we are not called to fight in a physical way. Overcoming evil with good is the idea of battling with kindness and love, rather than the means of the enemy, violence and force. In fact, this is the very context where Paul tells us to heap burning coals on the heads of our enemies by being kind to them (the previous verse in 1Cor 12…the end of the chapter). So “good” excludes violence.

    As for contributing to wars without actually fighting…there is a line there that I have not found yet. Once, a man wrote to me that if an intruder breaks in and I call the police and the police show up and kill the intruder then I have killed him by proxy. There is something unsettling about that kind of logic that I have not quite wrapped my head around…but it is also scripturally inconsistent. Romans 13 makes it clear that God gives government the power of the sword…but Jesus made it clear that power does nto belong to me. Besides, police are much better trained than I am to resolve situations without using deadly force. There is a good chance the man would not be killed, but would just be aprehended…and if I call in good faith, expecting a non-deadly encounter then I don’t see how a chance killing would be death by proxy.

    Anyway…still unanswered questions, but I see many inconsistencies in our interpretation and application.

    Now, about what Paul says about providing for family. In the context Paul is discussing financial support. I agree that it can apply to other kinds of provision, such as educating children, providing emotional support, etc… But, it comes down to this: do I violate Jesus’ teachings about non-violence to uphold Paul’s teaching about provision? Or vice-versa? Which takes precedence? For me and my family, from an eternal perspective, the soul of a lost intruder takes precedence over the souls of heaven-bound family members (again, I am not sure what I would do in that situation…but this is, at least, what I believe to be scripturally sound reasoning).

    You also said: But, if they should threaten and intend violence against my wife or children, or my neighbor aren’t I obligated by the law iof loving my neighbor as myself to do what i can to resist such a thing, even by violence?

    I say: But isn’t the intruder also your neighbor? So, doesn’t that obligate you to think of his best-interest as well, to love him as you love yourself?

    Good observations, difficult questions. We all definitely need to keep studying this and pursuing God’s will…..btu I think that is what God intends by making the decision so difficult. He wants us to have the heart to seek Him out.

  23. Randy, PK, and anyone else following the discussion…

    I have really enjoyed trying to work out this issue with you guys, and I intend to continue studying it (probably until the day I stand before God and get to ask Him what He wanted).

    I want to address this issue from a different angle…from a perspective that I think is the root of the differences we might have in interpretation and application.

    The issue, I think comes down to the premise of self-preservation. If you believe that you have a right to self-preservation then you will advocate defending yourself with violent and even deadly force. But, is this concept scriptural? Or is it an idea the world has passed on to us?

    From what I can tell, self-preservation is a worldly concept. Christians are supposed to view death differently than the world. We are not supposed to grieve at the loss of Christian loved ones like the world grieves at their losses. Paul debated about staying to serve God in the flesh, or leaving this world to be with the Lord. Jesus was willing to suffer and die to fulfill God’s purposes. The list could go on…but the idea is that death is supposed to lose its meaning to those who are redeemed from it. And, in light of eternal principles, we are supposed to view souls as more important than lives.

    So, the “law” of self-preservation says that it is common sense that I defend myself and my family (and my nation?) at all costs. But God’s perspective seems to be different…that I seek the good of my neighbor, which includes my enemy (the point of the story of the Good Samaritan), at all costs. This is evident when Paul points out that Christ died for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8). Christ did not value His own life, but gave it up for the good of his enemies…us.

    Most arguments (and I would go so far as to say all) for self-defense by deadly force come from the “common sense” angle…but it is only common sense if you start with the premise that self-preservation is vitally important. It seems to me that if we look at it from God’s perspective, the perspective of sacrificial love, then it is no longer “common sense” or logical, that self-preservation is not vitally important…but that giving up your life for the sake of another is common sense…and the definition of love:

    John 15:13 (ESV)
    13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.

    Matthew 5:44 (ESV)
    44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

  24. Clint,

    As you have remarked these are all very difficult situations and we can only hope our hearts are right with God and we are in tune with His will when and if it happens.

    I agree that self-preservation is worldly-minded and selfish, especially when we should have no reason to fear death. But, deciding that for others, including family seems a bit of a stretch.How do I know my wife is prepared to die? I may think she is and it is her responsibility to be prepared, but I cannot judge anyone else’s heart.

    I am repelled by pain and confrontation. I can assure you I would do my best, with God’s help, to keep the encounter non-violent. But, where is the line? I think God draws it at our attitudes. If I defend my family, not because I hate the intruder, but because I love my family, and I do not use excessive force or allow rage to rule me, am I not doing this in love? You could say that if I am successful in overpowering the evil man, I have prevented him from committing a serious sin? And doesn’t my love for my family “cover a multitude of sins”?

    By the way, I agree with your disputing my scripture use earlier. That was a stretch on my part.

  25. If it is wrong to use military force in advancing Christianity, then how can it be right to use military force to advance any lesser agenda/system/way of life/cause, such as nation, freedom or democracy (or, fill in the _________ )?

    2 Timothy 2:1-4 (ESV)
    1 You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.

  26. Jason,

    How kind of you to respond with a scripture and no explanation as to what you intend it to mean 🙂

    But, I will interpret, and say that is an excellent passage…what affairs ought a soldier of Christ be about? Entrusting the faith to faithful men who can teach others, and sharing in suffering (not causing others to suffer). Anything else is a “civilian pursuit.”

    Well, at least that’s what I hope you mean…

  27. PK,

    I’m not sure “love covers a multitude of sins” means what you have implied…as far as I can tell it does not mean that if I love I will be forgiven of a multitude of sins, but that if I love a multitude of sins will be excluded. I can’t hate or abuse or gossip about or ridicule my brother if I truly love him.

    This same phrase (cover a multitude of sins) is used in James 5:20, and, I admit, it can go either way there…but to me it is a little more consistent with scripture, especially the fact that God takes care of sin and not us, to understand it to mean that a multitude of sins are avoided by turning a sinner from his wanderings. But, again, I can see how it could also mean that by turning him back God will forgive him, and you have a part in that.

    My main point is to say that I am not sure love for family justifies the sin of killing another (as I think you implied by using that verse). After all, Abraham could have said the same thing about Isaac…if I love him and don’t sacrifice him then my love will cover the sin of not obeying God. And, Jesus says we must love Him more than our own families.

    Well, it is a difficult situation that I hope we never have to face. Thanks for your sincere pursuit of truth.

  28. Clint,

    Thank you for not being afraid to challenge my faulty use of scripture. I am just a baby Christian and sometimes fail to remember that. I don’t have all the answers and I never will.

    You are appreciated!

  29. PK,

    What’s a brother for, if not pointing out faulty use of Scripture? 🙂

    Well, don’t be getting any ideas that I am anything but a baby Christian, too…I was talking to some “older” Christians today (older in age, too), that had been in Christ over 50 years…that makes my 16 years look like nothing. And, I am definitely still a baby preacher. I have only been doing this for two years…not to mention the fact that I look like a teenager.

    My point is that we are in the same boat…both not having all the answers and both trying to find the Truth. That is what brothers are really for…pushing and helping and correcting and questioning so we can all attain to the unity of the faith. Thanks for pushing.


  30. I did not include any commentary to avoid challenging the topic at hand. I read this question long after the discussion ensued. I only hoped to bring to the conversation the first passage that came to mind when I read the initial question.

  31. I have read many post from many blogs, but this one sticks with me more than any. It really changed the way I see things. Im not saying I have come to a point that I could practrice this perfectly, but it sure has me looking at things in a whole new light.

  32. Clint,

    I am I correct in assuming you’ve read Mere Discipleship by Lee Camp? Have you also read Kingdom Come by John Mark Hicks or Myth of a Christian Nation by I can’t remember who? Great discussion. Maybe we can talk sometime if we ever cross paths.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s