I found this from the ex-churchofchrist.com website. I actually liked it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we should incorparate a "party-like" atmosphere into worship, or start wearing those stupid "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirts, but I think the author makes a good, valid point: worship should be something we are involved in. We should be spiritually, mentally, emotionally involved in worship. It's not a funeral we are attending, but a ressurection party (couldn't think of a good analogy, birthday maybe?). When we sing, it should be with our hearts, letting the joy out and sharing it with others. As much as I like those mellow songs that are generally sung before the Lord's Supper, wouldn't it be better to sang happy, upbeat songs? His death is nothing to us, his Ressurection is something to celebrate!
Another idea that I really liked is everyone sitting in a circle and singing to each other. My last year at Dry Creek, Glenda Schales taught a singing class. She had us all stand up and face each other, and then pick a face out in the people across from us and sing to them. I really enjoyed that, it seemed like that's how singing and worship was suppose to be. I wish we could arrange the pews in our auditorium so that we could face each other and sing to one another.
Glenda Schales, never met her but she has written some great songs. My--heretical--belief is that the early church sang but the Bible does not say they always sang together. I will never stand still for a choir but when Paul speaks of "one hath a psalm", I believe that "one" sang it to the congregation.
My "misunderstanding" comment was directed at the previous comment to mine. Again, I've never said the venting/attitude is ok or justified because of what they went through. My point has been to learn something. That's it. I appreciate your thoughts.
The early church definitely didn't sing the same way as we did, it was usually chants because people didn't have it written down, or couldn't read. But, they probably fullfilled what was more clearly laid out in the greek, 'sing one unto another' a reciprocate pronoun of 'one unto another'. I personally don't like songs where its just the women singing for a huge majority of the song, because i don't feel it fulfills that example, and also it seems to be focusing on sound rather than meaning, there is no reason the guy shouldn't be singing... especially when there is a part written and the 'song leader' decides it is a good idea to rearrange the song.
At our congregation, people really participate. This has caused me at times to wonder why people like that website author have such a problem, but I have been to churches where it seemed like the members of the congregation just didn't really want to be there, or were afraid to sing. I really don't want to judge those people, either. Small groups sometimes put more into worship than large groups, but sometimes the folks there are so shy they're afraid of sticking out. It can be very frustrating for people who feel like there should be more participation, but they're doing what they think they need to in order to please God. (I'm not sure if I'm on topic or not here.)
(And I've been to larger congregations that seemed dead, as well, almost as if the people up front were the only ones involved. Oddly, "fixing" the problem can be as simple as painting the walls a lighter color!)
^^That is what I really like about the congregation at Major Drive. It's small, maybe 30 people on a good day, but when we sing EVERYONE sings, and they sing out. And you can tell. We don't have the best song leaders (well now we do, with Lonnie and I coming there =P). But those who do lead lead with their heart, and the congregation helps them out. Instead of leaders, we basically have "song starters and selectors" if that makes sense. Besides Lonnie, I can't really pick out the voice of the "leader" (he's just so loud!).
There was one time that Steve Dewhurst gave an AMAZING sermon at Stonegate. It was truly one of a kind. Instead of "preaching" he picked out certain songs that praised God, read the verses about the songs, and then taught everyone had to sing them with their "heart." It was amazing! By far, my favorite sermon of all time. It addressed the exact problem that I sensed a lot of the time in our singing. That night, Lonnie was really excited. He was going to be leading singing and couldn't wait to hear how wonderful and powerful the singing would be tonight after that amazing sermon in the morning. That was the most depressing night ever. The singing was terrible. It was almost as if everyone jsut forgot what was talked about the morning. Lonnie didn't want to lead for a very long time, he was just that discouraged. Just goes to show the "power" when we all sing out vs. the harm that can come from being scared of being heard.
That reminds me of Otis Worry at the old Rosedale church in Beaumont. His voice wasn't really pleasant, but when he led singing, everybody sang! Your comment brings up another thought: Some people aren't comfortable with some of the newer songs, especially the ones that stir the emotions. Now, if we really pay attention to the words, the old songs -- all of the songs in the book -- will stir our emotions. If we aren't thinking about the words, we aren't praising God. If a new song makes us think (and feeling is a result of thinking), then it's good to sing it.
Hi, I made my way over here from Caryn's blog. Interesting thoughts. My response would be, be careful about judging by appearances. I can talk to you without looking at you (phone, internet, etc.) - so why is it that I can't communicate to you by singing without looking at you? Certainly, we all need to be sure that we're considering the words of the songs we sing (MUCH easier to do, by the way, when the songs actually say something! :) ), but my way of showing emotion may be VERY different from yours.
There are references in early Christian writings to individuals singing to the group. You're not quite as heretical as you think :).
Regarding worship, we must be careful that we do not read what we have always known into the text of the Scriptures. We must also make sure that we are meeting with other people for the right reason.
Some critique on the article: The article that you referenced, in my opinion, was not from a very wise person. First, they recommend not meeting with other Christians for 40 days. Very bad idea. Does meeting with other people who love God keep you from thinking about God? Not in my experience. Can you only "experience" God away from other Christians? Surely not.
Secondly, a parable is a story meant to convey a very particular meaning. They take certain elements of the story and ascribe to it meanings that I highly doubt Jesus intended. When studying parables, look for the point of the story rather than trying to make everything mean something.
Thirdly, read through the text of the parable very carefully. The article’s author seems to embellish certain details to make their point. If you have to add to God’s word to make your point, maybe your point isn’t in God’s word.
It’s late and I’m tired, so this is my last comment for the day :). The idea that you have expressed about worship being uplifting and edifying and encouraging is the only way that assembling with one another is talked about. When people are filled with the spirit (Ephesians 5.18), that is the kind of atmosphere that will result from their coming together. Sometimes we may allow ourselves to become more liturgical than spiritual, and that is never a good thing. That doesn’t make what we do bad, it just means we need to drink some living water.
I read through this again today, and there was something else that I wanted to add that I think is important. You commented that his death is nothing to us; I don't think that's true. His death was the atoning sacrifice for our sins. It is through his death that we are reconciled to God; that's important. That doesn't mean that we have to sing funeral dirges every Sunday, but his death is important. While we are reconciled through his death, we shall live through his life. Both of these are occassions for joy not just in a time of worshipping with other Christians, but throughout our daily lives. There was a reason that Paul was able to say that we should be ever rejoicing, for Christ is risen. We must never forget, however, that you can't have a resurrection without a death first.
Good point. In I Cor. 11, we see that the Lord's Supper is to commemorate his death, not his resurrection. (We often hear people say that it's about his death, burial, and resurrection, but the focus is on his death, which is the sacrifice for our sins.)
But, didn't Paul also say that if Christ had not risen than we of all people are most miserable. To me, the fact that he died isn't nearly as important as the fact he over came death. I know you can't have one w/o the other, but if he would have just died sinless, we would still have no hope of heaven because if God himself couldn't over come death than there is no hope for us.
I think I'm coming into this late and will most likely forget to check for responses. I don't think you can ascribe "levels of importance" to His death or resurrection. Clearly, being the spotless Lamb for our sins is something we must never forget and is appropriate in our worship. The fact that I should be killed for my sins, yet He took my place should not be discounted as "nothing to us". Personally I think not enough time is spent in our worship remembering that sacrifice. A two-stanza song, quick prayers, followed by a money collection isn't what I think the early church did.
^^ They did come together to worship God with one another, but I don't get the idea that they had a "worship service" like we hear defined today.
Re: Daughter of God Sure, Paul did say that if Christ was not raised we are in a great deal of trouble, but it's reading into what he said to make the Lord's Supper about something other than Christ's death. However, just because it is about his death, again, doesn't make it a funeral with requisite somber and pallid atmosphere. It is quite possible to be joyful while celebrating the Lord's Supper. It is quite possible to be joyful at a funeral. I wish that I could have peaked in on an early Christian love feast, but it is a mistake to think of the memorial supper as something full of dread - it something full of love and hope. It is the remembrance of God's offering the only sacrifice capable of taking away sin. Christ didn't "just die", Christ was given as a sacrifice. It was this sacrifice that cleanses us. Is that not important? It is very important. Is it the most important? As someone already noted, it's probably a mistake to make one aspect of the myster of godliness, the resurrection or the sacrifice, more important than the other.
I didn't read all of your friends' comments, but I just want to say that the singing at Glen Springs Road in Gainesville is absolutely beautiful! I do find the newer ones make me feel that I really am worshiping my God. And some just bring tears to my eyes...Rabboni, and I'm not sure if it is this same song, but one of the newer ones that we've learned brings a point that I had never tho't about...the only manmade thing in heaven is the scars on Jesus when He was crucified. Oh, the one that talks about the ones who are young and ask for His help...I don't see how you can sing the words to these songs and not be moved.
Recently I read a discussion concerning websites that were "anti-church of Christ." I've always been under the impression that the church of which I am a member of is a non-denomitaional, local, organization. Apparently, that isn't how a lot of people who are members of the Church of Christ view things.
See, when I see terms like "Church of Christ" or "Church of God" I automatically assume Christians. When I see terms like "Baptists" "Methodists" "Catholics" I assume an denominational organization. Something that no matter where you go, you can identify a "Baptist" church by its dogma. I've never thought the same of the church of Christs I have attended. I've always seen them as Christians who assmeble together to study the truth and worship God. We don't have "doctrine" or "dogma" we have the Bible. So when someone says to me "X is more prevelant in Churches of Christ" I can't really grasp what they are saying, because it sounds no different than saying "X is more prevelant among Christians."
That's not how it should be, I don't think. We should all be Christians, assembled in local bodies out of convience, not out of doctrinal separation or something similar. Isn't that what Paul told us? One Faith, one Lord, one Baptism? We shouldn't be "followers of Paul" or "followers of the Church of Chirst" we should be simply Christians. People shouldn't be able to say things like "Churches of Christ" because though the basic truths are all the same (the Bible) there should be enough local differences (worship times, organization/teaching styles etc) that make them clearly different and individual.
I guess I've been delusioned to think that what we do at services is based off of scripture. Maybe it's not so much "how" we do things as it should be? You know, when do we ever see in examples of what we today call "worship" one preacher presenting a lesson? The impression I've always gotten is multiple individuals leading songs, sharing lessons etc. (Not to say that one man preaching a sermon is wrong)
Maybe the Church I attend with has more "connections" with other congregations that run deeper and are stronger than I have imagined. Or maybe it's just some congregations that are tied together more deeply than is needed?
Wouldn't the best, and simplest solution be to start working on the problems at a local level? and not banding together and making this a global issue?
I don't care what the "statistics" say or how often this happens in Christian churches, but every single wrong that has every happened against a person has been the work of individuals. There may be patterns that imerge, but the bottom line is that it's the work of individual people not "The Church of Christ."
I'm not trying to defend "The Church," I've never experienced such issues at the congregations I've attended. (Well, not as bad as many have. I was shocked when my attendance dropped at one location how few people sent cards or called my husband and myself directly, but instead relied on hearsay to determine our status. I'll be honest, we weren't telling the truth to those who did ask. It's a little intimidating when your father-in-law or the wife of an elder ask you why you haven't been at Church. I digress, later discussion). I can't defend or explain individual problems and issues, or why people feel that they were abandoned by "the Church."
The bottom line, I think, is that the love has been left by the wayside, in many cases, for favor of doctrinal perfection. As important as the truth is, I believe there are many things we take out of proportion and distort into "the truth" and forget that those things really have no bearing on our spiritual life. (ie. what will happen when we die? are you a Christian before or after you are baptised? (assuming you are baptised to begin with) how short is too short?).
It all is love. Love one another. (see my post below) If we put the love we have for God and our fellow man first, how can we sin? How can we fail? (LOVE = agape, relationship with man: what is in the best interest of another, relationship with a superior: what would please them)
You state: "the love has been left by the wayside, in many cases, for favor of doctrinal perfection"
I certainly agree.
I wish our central doctrine was this one.
Matt 22:37-40
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
My hubby is always saying "everything is either #1 or #2 - Matthew 22:38-39. You can decide/figure out what to do based on 1) loving God or 2) loving your neighbor.
I've never had to deal with issues or fights within a congregation, either, and I'm glad for that. I think a lot of the "didn't call" and "didn't send a card" people were worried about you, but didn't quite know how to approach you (or anyone, for that matter). You don't want to run someone off completely because they think you're fussing at them, so you don't know what to do, and maybe don't do anything. The elder's wife was mature enough to call you, yet you felt intimidated. Regarding your point about being more concerned about doctrine than love, being concerned about doctrine is a big part of loving God and wanting to please Him. People don't seem to understand that. It's like trying to please your own parents, in a way. You wouldn't say "I love my parents" then tear their things up, or refuse to help them. In fact, loving your neighbor is part of the doctrine.
If we don't like it when people lump Christians' beliefs into the "Church of Christ", then we should stop lumping other Christians' beliefs into the "Baptists" or the "Methodists". We are getting far too caught up in names and not hearts. Don't we see that being of one mind (1 Corinthians 1:10) is impossible when we neglect to humble ourselves before Christ?
Going back to your first post on this blog, which was based on something I had said about getting our feelings hurt: Doesn't your going back to the "not enough people called me" show a lack of love for those people, and a judgement of them because they failed to live up to your own standards? Love works both ways, and getting our feelings hurt is a way of putting ourselves first rather than others.
At your new church, you should work hard to show those people the love they need. Be involved with them by taking the initiative when they themselves might be too shy. Ask them over for dinner, even if it's "bring your own burgers" (they'll understand that!). By showing love for them, you'll be showing love for God. And really, that's the only way we can forget about what other churches are doing or not doing, and we can forget about people not living up to our expectations, because we're too busy doing the Lord's work to notice.
I had a look at that website. Actually, I've seen it, or another one similar, before. He talks about not being able to find another church because of the way he has been taught in the past, and about how he would have to give up a lot of the things he believes. If that's so, then I don't understand why he thinks he needs to. Well, actually, he answers that by saying "Perhaps one of the things that I learned in the hard-line Churches of Christ was that church has to be perfect, and anything less than that has been unsatisfactory to me." He's demanding perfection of people! And that's what you said in your post -- we can't expect that, and sometimes we'll be surprised by how imperfect they are. Anyway, now that I understand what you're saying. I think your questions are good about how we do things. There is at least one example (Acts 20:7) where Paul's preaching was clearly the bulk of the assembly that day, but we also have the examples (1 Cor 14) where a lot of people took part, and that is acceptible as long as it is orderly. And really, we don't always follow the same format. A lot of churches have a Sunday night every month where there's nothing besides singing, and a lot of people lead. Occasionally, more that one person will preach. But normally, we have one songleader and one preacher and two or three who lead prayers, I suppose because mixing it up just for the sake of mixing it up can be cumbersome as far as planning.
The last sentence of your post says it all. I agree with everything everyone here said. I do want to point out that the author of that site was demanding perfection of people because it was what he was taught (me too). He is trying to leave that mentality behind but it is hard (me too). It's incredibly frustrating (understatement) to learn that and realize you will never be perfect and stand no chance of being saved. His point is being misunderstood.
1 Corinthians 13
The Way of Love
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Matthew 22: 36-40
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
John 14:12,21-24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do.
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.
1 John 2:1-17
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
The New Commandment
Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
I am writing to you, little children,
because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.
I am writing to you, fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men,
because you have overcome the evil one.
I write to you, children,
because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
because you are strong,
and the word of God abides in you,
and you have overcome the evil one.
Do Not Love the World
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
I often think we get too bogged down, like Pharisees, with keeping the letter of the law that we miss the big picture. We get so caught up in "does this greek word translate more accurately to this or to this?" that we sometimes forget that we are discussing things that have no bearing on our spirituality. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work of all the devoted individuals that poured that hearts out to translate the Bible and give us a better understanding of God's word, but sometimes it seems, especially on pleo, that many people are missing the point.
Sometimes I just feel so hopeless, like nothing I am ever going to say will ever make a difference. Seriously, who on here as actually learned something? How on pleo do you know that has managed to set aside their preconceived notions on how we are to worship and entered into a study openminded and actually learned something? I've seen it happen a few, but you always get 2 people that will dominate the discussion and drown out anyone else. I know I've done it, and I know I've also just sat at stared at my computer monitor wondering how someone could be so brainwashed that they actually thought that. Then there are some people that I don't take seriously anything they say because almost every time I hear from them they say something really rude or stupid.
Ah, I digress.
When I read passages like the ones I read above it seems so obvious to me sometimes what is being taught. What God cares about more than anything, more than your faith, your knowledge and wisdom, more than your talents, is your love for him and your fellow man. If you have a strong well rooted faith, wisdom to interpret any scripture, but fail to aid your neighbor in a time of need, what good are you? Was it not the Gentile that finally lent aid to the man on the side of the road, after some of the most religious and well respected men in Israel passed him by? Do you not think that that Gentile was closer to God than either of those other men who profess Godliness?
You have to put your fellow man first. If you love your brother you aren't going to lash out at him in anger, steal his wife, or covet his possesions. By loving your brother you fulfill and keep the law. Not by love alone, but by the actions you take to treat your brother with love.
You are so right. Often overlooked in our "arguments" over issues are THE GREATEST COMMANDS. It appears that love for our brethren is based on agreement. Love for our brethren is to be as Christ's, unconditional. That does not mean that we accept error. But erring brother or not we are to love him.
As for "I just feel so hopeless", go back to the teaching of Jesus, the Master Teacher whose teachings were rejected by His own people. Yet He continued to teach. The Prophet Jeremiah was told by God that the people would not listen but teach anyway.
I rarely participate in those long discussions unless I think (usually, mistakenly) that I can somehow help to make peace. If we participate in those things and find ourselves being angry over something minor, then we have a problem. If those who participate, even out of a true love for God's word, can't seem to get along with their coworkers, then their religion is vain anyway.
I would take issue with your statement that God is more concerned about love than faith. Love is faith, faith is love. If someone refuses to help a neighbor when they see a need, they aren't just lacking in love, they're lacking in faith. Faith is often misconstrued as how often one attends worship services. Faith is often misconstrued as how much money one puts in a collection plate; how often we lead singing, say a prayer, preach a sermon, teach a class - those are not the things that make one's faith, but those should be things that issue forth from one's faith. Jesus said if you love me, you will keep my commandments. Love is always and has always been the root, the crux, the radical component of religion. If love is not the reason that something is done, it is being done incorrectly.
Steven makes a good point. We can love our fellow man and yet not have faith in God (and there are many in this world who are like that -- atheists who believe in good deeds). In I Cor 13, Paul makes a point about the things that were temporary (the spiritual gifts) and what is permanent: Faith, hope, and love. Maybe love gives us motivation for faith and hope. Behind all of life, though, is the fact that we are supposed to submit our lives to God. If we can completely do that, we won't have a problem with faith, hope, or love. My understanding here is that "faith" is believing and trusting God. If you love other people, but don't trust God, then your love may serve other people but it is temporary, only as long as your life lasts.
That was my point, lol. And part of part 2. =) So I'll be sure to answer those points you brought up in my next post.
As for what I think people miss during the discussions? That a lot of the things we talk about on pleo have no bearing on our spirituality. For example, people argure over what a particular word in a verse means, or something of that nature. While those things may be good to know, there is no point pushing away your brothers and sisters just so you can "be right" over a topic that doesn't really have a "right" answer. People forget to love their neighbors and brethren and put "making their point" above listening to what others have to say.
I know this may be one of those topics that no one can ever agree on. I just pray that none of us ever have to make that decision.
When you think about it happening to you, a man breaking into your house and saying he's gonna rape and kill your children after he does you, it seems so very just and right to take action then and there and do whatever is necesary to protect your family. But, when you think about it, doesn't that man have a family too? Didn't he once have a mother, and father, maybe siblings, old classmates, maybe work friends? Didn't he also have a life? How is what you do to him in defense any different than what he is going to do to you? Won't people still end up dead?
I don't think the numbers matter. Remember the "one lost sheep" that the shepard went to go find and rejoiced when he did? God isn't sastified just because he has 99 sheep and he only lost one. He wants all his sheep. Every last one of them in precious to him. So should we play a roll in shorting the life of a potential sheep?
There's a scene in LOTR: Return of the King I believe where Faramir captures Frodo and Sam. A group of "evil" men are marching on their way to Mordor to join Saurons army. As Farami and his troops wipe out the opposing forces, he notices Frodo and Sam sneaking about. As he's talking to them he rolls the body of a young man over with his foot. Looking down at him he says "It makes you wonder if he was really evil at heart, did he really want to leave his country for this war?" (or something along those lines). Do you ever really know who anyone truly is? We hear about suicide bombers and people doing horrible things in Iraq and other places, but do they really know any better? Are you God, can you judge their hearts? Do you have the power to decide when someone has had enough second chances?
Interesting. In the OT the same God who commanded the Jew to LOVE his neighbor as himself also commanded that Jew to stone to death that neighbor he loved if that neighbor shed innocent blood. God will judge the heart. I can only judge the action. I am a 30 year retired police officer. One of the major problems in our society is too much time spent to trying to figure out why people commit crimes instead of doing something about people committing crimes. Eccl. 8:11 When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.
It may be true that everyone has some capacity for compassion, but some people do all that they can to be evil. I don't own a gun because I don't think that there are enough of those people around that I have anything to worry about. We've been burglarized, but by people who made sure nobody was home. There are places you can live, though, where the risk is high. Certainly it would be traumatic to kill someone who was going to cause me harm, but the Bible seems to accept that as reality. Doing a bit of Googling, I see that Exodus 22 says that if a thief breaks in and you kill him, you aren't guilty of bloodshed, but if it is daytime you are guilty. I don't really understand the difference there. Perhaps the threat would have been less in the daytime. (After all, they didn't have guns.) In Luke 22, Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with the apostles carrying swords. Certainly, if there's an alternative to killing someone, we should choose that path, but if someone is attacking us, there really may not be an alternative.
Yes, police officers are taught that deadly force is a LAST resort. Here is what is scary. Our Muslim enemies view it as a FIRST resort. They don't negotiate, they don't reason, they kill. The only thing that will stop them is to kill them first.
Jesus hid Himself to avoid those who were searching for Him, but from what I can tell from Scripture, He never used self-defense tactics that would inflict pain or injury on another person. I think that's pretty telling.
^^^^One thing you over look. In Matt. 23: 38-38 Jesus placed a curse on the City of Jerusalem for their rejection of Him. When he said "Behold your house is left unto you desolate" that means destruction would come upon them for their rejection.
But then again, that is Jesus and he is God. So do his examples in this matter really count, since he has more knowlegde and ultimate "judgment" than we do?
