I turn back to the Sermon on the Mount and try to place it in its time when the norm was not McDonalds, but hunger; when disease was more common than medicine; when the road into town was lined with a few occupied crosses, intead of billboards; when the epidemic of iliteracy plagued at least 90% of the population; when being meek was not just an attitude, but a lifestyle. And in this setting emerges a rabbi, son of Mary and Joseph, who teaches that the blessed in the world are those that suffer, who hunger, who thirst. He expounds upon the law, stretching the people's comprehension from a simple "Do not commit adultery," to "everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-30).
I take Jesus' teaching on adultery seriously and I am glad to be a part of a faith community that takes it seriously too. We are taught by Jesus to not only commit ourselves to faithfulness with our chosen partner, but we are taught that faithfulness of the mind is just as important. I believe this to be appropriate council and I make no exceptions to it in my personal life. No adultery, period. No lusting, period.
Before addressing adultery, Jesus discusses the law 'Thou shalt not kill" (Matt 5:21-26). And later He addresses the command/saying of "Thou shalt love your neighbor and hate your enemy" (Matt. 5:43-47). As before, Jesus expounds telling his audience to not only abstain from killing, but not even hate. "Love your enemy and pray for those that persecute you," is the teaching. If I am to remain consistent with my level of dedication to Jesus' teachings presented already in my stern concerning adultery, then am I not making the same type of committment to his teaching to not kill, to not even hate? No killing, period?
While I see many a Christian (in which I include Mormons) hold strong to their commitment to not commit adultery or lust, I perceive a disharmony in our commitment to love our enemy. It is telling that not only did Jesus teach a type of pacifism, but also lived a life wherein, when faced with his own death by injustice, he submitted without retaliation. In fact, he heals one who would walk him to his final doom (Luke 22:47-53). In the power of darkness Jesus heals. He does not retaliate. What love.
So what of Jesus' disciples? They too would suffer. In the centuries that follow Christ the stories of Christian martyrs are held up as an example for those who wish to follow this Prince of Peace. To be a Bishop in the first few centuries, following Christ practically guaranteed only one thing - you would be the first to die for your community of faith. All of the extant Christian writings we have after Christ's death up to the 4th century advocate that Christians are not to join the military, but are to follow instead the life and teachings of Christ. There is a consistent call for Christians to make a commitment to non-violence beginning with Christ's teachings, surging through his life, and charging forward in the lives of his early disciples. No killing, period.
It's a scary commitment. It is one plagued with practical questions, leading the imagination to concoct unrelenting hypotheticals. For example, what if the American Christians did not respond to the threat of the Nazi party? We'd all be speaking German! Of course, what if the German Christians did not respond to the rise of the Nazi party with its call of seizing power and retaliation? Could WWII been avoided if the world-wide Christian movement - empowered by the unrelenting stance of non-violence of the German Christians - stood firm to its Lord and made a stance against war (Hays)? I think Bonhoeffer describes the attitude and commitment we are to make when he said, "I can no longer condemn or hate a brother [or sister] for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me. His face that hitherto may have been strange and intolerable to me is transformed through intercession into the countenance of a brother for whom Christ died" (Bonhoeffer, Life Together).
I try to remember the people that first heard the Sermon on the Mount faced these and many more threats. It was a time and place as hard if not harder than our own, but they still made the commitment: I will not commit adultery and I will not lust; I will not kill and I will not hate my enemy. Istead, I will love my enemy as Jesus taught in word and deed. Tough words.
To avoid this train of thought going too long, I end here with some questions to hopefully stimulate some discussion. Does the Book of Mormon as a whole provide the same demand on its readers as the Sermon on the Mount and life of Jesus? Does it justify killing under certain circumstances? Do we follow Nephi's example or do we follow the example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's? And of most importance, what type of commitment to non-violence do we make today?
As always,
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Very interesting thought. Of course, we need to look into the etymology of the translated word, "kill", as well as to see the context. While the illustration of non-violence (Abinidi, Christ before Cruxifiction), Justified Violence (pre-emptive or Retribution)(many illustrations in the OT, NT, and BofM), as well as that of defending the common good or justified violence (Nephi, Moroni, Ammon, Peter, etc.) is prevelent throughout the scriptures, I think that you bring up an important point: where is the heart? Would the Lord condemn all soldiers fighting in battles across the globe? Where is their heart? We know where Nephi's heart was in killing Laban. He didn't desire to shed blood, innocent or guilty, but did desire to follow the commandments of the Lord, no matter how difficult they may be. Same as Abraham who was commanded to kill his son. Was he a pre-meditated murderer (he did plan to kill him after all), surely no one would suggest that. Evidence of the hand of the Lord slaying the wicked is found throughout canonized scripture. I even recall an episode where the people followed the command to kill, but did not destroy everything the Lord commanded them to so they were under condemnation. Moroni didn't desire to shed blood, but was willing to defend his family, freedoms, etc. as outlined in the Title of Liberty. The Anti-Nephi-Lehi's were able to be non-violent because they were under covenant to do so and there were others who were willing to fight in their stead. While I do not desire to shed blood of any kind, would I do so to protect my family? If necessary, yes? If the Lord convenanted with me to fulfill an assignment (like Nephi or Abraham), would I? WHY would I? I would do so, not because I like to or want to kill, but because I desire to follow even the tough commandments of the Lord. Where is our heart when it comes to keeping the commands of the Lord? I'm glad you made the parallel between Chastity and killing. SO appropriate since the reasons, and matters of the heart, are applicable. What if the Lord, again similar to the situation with Abraham, commanded plural marriage? Where would our heart be? Sure, I'm sure there are those that would pervert the ways of the Lord and do things outside of the boundaries that the Lord has set, taking advantage of the opportunity to fulfill the commandment as many times as possible, just as there would be those whose desires to kill and murder are cloaked by their rank and uniform. Or there are those who fulfill the measure of the Law, with strict obedience. When the Lord commands it, do it! But, make sure the heart is in the right place and in the right condition. We should not desire to shed the blood of our brothers and sisters, period! If we do so, we are under condemnation. Just some thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOh, forgot...Yes, The Book of Mormon does put the same demand on its readers as it does the Old and New Testament. As one looks at the time periods covered in the Book of Mormon, we see a parallel in the message covered in the Law of Moses of Jehovah and the message found prior to 3 Nephi 11. We also see a parallel in the message of Christ's New Testament and the message found in 3 Nephi on. Much of the end of the Book of Mormon is the mourning of a blood thirsty people who have lost sight of the Savior's teachings. Alen
DeleteAlen's comments are pertinent. For whatever reason, Jehovah is less prince of peace in the old testament (Nephi 1 shares this timeline with the OT) than is his human incarnation. So would Jesus kill Laban? Probably not. But I wouldn't put it past Jehovah. But isn't the Lord supposed to be the same yesterday, today and etcetera? Trav, then I have a question for you; I'd sincerely appreciate your insight here. Why does Jehovah command Saul and the Israelites to kill every man woman and child and the innocent livestock of the Amalekites (the killing of Laban is miniscule in comparison) only to profess, a few hundred years later, that we should love our enemy? Was it for the sake of the greater good of the Lord's people? Was it simply that Jesus introduced a higher law that we now are expected to live? Whatever the answer, I'm sure that you could apply it to Nephi as well.
ReplyDeleteBut to answer your questions glibly and superficially: yes, yes, both and situationally appropriate.
Ben, The question is a tough one so let me get back to you. I think this is one for us all to think on.
ReplyDelete