Singalphile wrote:I'm not sure I understand your position, mattrose. It seems like you're saying that it is a sin for a Christian to be a police officer ("I don't participate in it b/c Jesus told us not to.") but not for a non-Christian ("I can think of no higher non-Christian calling.").
I don't think any Christian should voluntarily put themselves in a situation where they are expected to be willing to use violence. I think the best interpretation of Jesus is that this is inappropriate behavior for the Christian. With that in mind, however, there are 2 scenarios where the issue is not so black and white.
First, what about a person who is in a job requiring a willingness to use violence (police/military) who subsequently becomes a Christian. I don't think it is absolutely necessary that they leave their post, especially if there is some degree of likelihood that they will never have to use violence during their tenure.
Second, what about those Christians who interpret Jesus differently? Of course, they should follow their conscience and their best understanding of their Lord.
So it's not as easy as simply saying I think it's a sin for a Christian to be a police officer. It would be a sin for me to be a police officer b/c I'm currently not one AND because I interpret my Lord to be teaching that I shouldn't put myself in that position. But it's not necessarily a sin for all current Christian police officers to be police officers. Since sin is primarily a relational thing, it is possible to be in the wrong without sinning. It is very difficult to overcome years of indoctrination.
If that is your position, then it is confusing to me. It seems like any legal job position is either inherently immoral (e.g., stripper, abortionist, a soldier or officer in an aggressive, imperial dictatorship's police/army), in which case no person should take the job, or else it's not inherently immoral and therefore any person, Christian or not, should be able to fill the position.
Obviously, based on this thread, this sense is quite popular. I just disagree with it. My guess is that Christians have responded to moral relativism by hunkering down on the idea of absolute truth insofar as we INSIST that what's right for one person must be right for everyone and what's wrong for one person must be wrong for everyone. Well, I believe in moral absolutes too... but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING is absolute. There are situational ethics. People in different situations are responsible to obey different laws.
As questionable as that might first seem, it is actually recognized by everyone. There are different laws from town to town, state to state, country to country. When we are in each place, we are subject to the laws of that land. Well, in the same way that is true spatially, it is also true relationally. People who are in different relationship to Jesus Christ are subject to different ethical guidelines.
Steve brought up a good comparison (actually, it is more than a good comparison, it is a near perfectly parallel). Think of the Old Testament. The priests had a different role than the members of the other tribes. They were not to participate in war. This did not indicate that the rest of Israel was sinning when they went to war. They just had a different role. In the New Covenant, we have a priesthood of all believers. We are a kingdom of priests. In ancient Israel, God called the priests to perform one role and the rest of Israel to perform another (which included the use of violence). In today's world, God calls the church to perform one role and the rest of the world to perform another (which includes the use of of violence).
It is somewhat surprising, to me, that this idea of different people in different roles being subject to a different ethic is being interpreted as hypocritical when it is so much a part of revealed biblical history.
Some professions provide unique opportunity for immoral, physical abuse, but it seems like we'd especially want Christians in those professions so as to guard against that abuse. I can see that Jesus and his apostles taught us to allow ourselves to be personally abused and taken advantage of. I don't see where the Bible teaches that we shouldn't be involved in any military or police job even in a country with good laws and police/military practices.
I don't insist that everyone agree with me. But I also think it is important for people to state their convictions clearly so that people who do understand Jesus differently have opportunity to think the issue through, if they haven't already. I could easily say, in other words, "well, to each his own... it's no big deal what we decide on these issues." But that is disingenuous. It is a big deal. We should definitely think through our willingness to shoot somebody dead. We should definitely think through our willingness to even put ourselves in a position where we have an obligation toward that willingness.
As for me, I can't imagine doing that while simultaneously loving that person. I've been accused of hypocrisy by multiple people in this thread b/c I'm against violence but see nothing wrong with calling the police. What level of hypocrisy is it to be able to reconcile love for enemies with shooting one of them in the head?
Of course, we want everyone to become a Christian. As we work towards that goal, would we say then that our pool of police and military applicants is necessarily getting smaller? Rather, I think that our police and military would be becoming less corrupt, less prone to power trips, less aggressive, etc. as more true believers become involved in them for the better.
I am not good enough at hypothetical to speculate confidently. I'd guess that if more people were truly becoming Christians, there'd be less overall crime to deal with (and the need for less officers). I'd also guess that the growing Christian body would be salt and light in such a way that begins to transform people even before they convert. I'd also imagine that some non-Christians serving in such roles would convert... and I've already said I don't think their situation is clear-cut that they should get out (the early church struggled with that issue too).
God has different callings for different members of the church (like priesthood vs. military in Israel, all part of God's people), but I don't see where God has different but equally legitimate callings for non-Christians vs. Christians.
That's what Romans 13 is about. Governments are called to certain tasks. They exist, in part, to bring punishment on wrongdoers. The church does not exist to bring punishment on wrongdoers. The church exists to love them.
Did the early century Christians think that their particular government (Rome?) was inherently corrupt and ungodly and therefore no one (especially Christians) should participate in it, or did they think that any government or military position involving potential violence is inherently immoral (for all or for just Christians)?
That's a good question. I think they recognized that all earthly kingdoms were unholy. I think they recognized that all violence was unholy.
Thank you for the tone and thoughtfulness of your questions and comments.