Militant Christianity?

An earlier post by Jim2, and a post by Minuteman a couple of weeks ago, have brought out a point that interests me. This was an excerpt of Jim's post:

" All this turn the other cheek thing is the most misquoted and misunderstood subject in Christianity. One never seems to hear quoted; if you have no sword, sell your cloak (just about their only clothing!) and buy one; A man that won't defend his family is worse than an infidel; King David was a man after God's own heart (world class warrior had personally killed 1000's in hand to hand combat); Two swords were carried in the very presence of Jesus; If a man breaks into a home and dies as a result, then his blood is on his own head. God ordering the Israeli kings to wipe out groups of people that were a clear and present danger to the Jews; The King does not wield the sword in vain."

And Jim, I am not picking picking on you at all, and would in fact appreciate your personal answer to my question.

The question is:
"Is mainstream Christianity, or a parts of Christianity, becoming more militant?"

And by "militant" I don't necessarily mean that in a pejorative way. I'm not picking a fight with anyone. I'm actually curious if this is an actual trend and, if so, how wide spread it is; or whether it is just a perception of non-Christians, or perhaps, of only me.

Minuteman mentioned that he was putting together a study showing Biblical support for a more militant brand of Christianity than is the normal perception of the religion; and Jim's comments seemed to mirror that idea - "That Christianity is not a passive religion, and Jesus of Nazareth was not a passive individual; and the perception that Christianity ever was supposed to be non-militant is a mistaken one."I also see a lot of the "Armor of God" / "Armor of Christ" motifs on military challenge coins and clothing, that I don't remember seeing twenty years ago.

I grew up in a Fundamentalist Evangelical culture, and passivity was always preached from the pulpits of the churches that I attended in my younger years. There was always the understanding that we, being mortals, would never be able to reach the perfection of Jesus of Nazareth, but his loving kindness, rejection of violence and hatred, and his charity of person and spirit should always be our goal. "Do unto others ...." and "Turn the other cheek" were always big themes.

The way that most of my fellow church members seemed to actually deal with day to day life was to say "Amen" from the pews on Sundays, and do whatever they wanted to do the rest of the week; secure in the knowledge that Christians may not be perfect, but they are forgiven their transgressions.

During a career in the Marines, most of my fellow Marines claimed Christianity as their religious affiliation, and seemed to have an understanding of what the Bible had to say about violence comparable to my own - "don't do it." This understanding of what their religion had to say about violence in no way inhibited them from killing their fellow man and destroying his abode. There seemed to be the same divide as in civilian life between what the book says, and what we actually do. There never seemed to be a need to use the Bible to justify their actions.

The few times that I remember hearing anyone attempt to justify violence, they always reached back into the Old Testament for some verses supporting murder and mayhem. There was never an attempt to actually portray Jesus as anything but passive. Yes, he turned over the money lenders tables in the temple, but that seemed to be an aberration to his normal countenance, and a result of extreme provocation. I don't recall anyone seriously pointing to the New Testament as a source of justification for violence.

What I am hearing now, from at least two Christians, both thinking men, educated in their beliefs and the Bible, seems to be that the turning over of the money lenders tables was not an aberration at all; but rather an example of the nature of Jesus and of Christianity (and if I am putting words into anyone's mouth, I apologize; it is not my intent).

So, is Christianity evolving into something more militant, or perhaps just part of Christianity, perhaps evangelical fundamentalists?

Is it not necessarily Christianity changing, but rather a new need to justify the thoughts and feelings that always existed within the majority of those who claim Christianity?

Is it the fact that our national conflicts have taken on religious overtones vis a vis AlQaieda, the Taliban, other Muslim Extremists? Is the fact that this conflict is seen as a conflict between Christianity and Islam the reason that there is a new desire to justify the killing of our fellow man within our understanding of Christianity?

Is the increasingly global nature of our society and visibility of other cultures responsible for this phenomena? Because we can look at a television screen and actually see the faces of the people our military will be sent to kill? Is it easier to accept the passive nature of Christianity in a predominantly Christian culture when you don't have to see the people you are supposed to hate and kill? Is this shift something required to prevent a cognitive dissonance between what we are doing, and what we know we are supposed to be doing? If we can use the Bible to justify our actions, does that erase that dissonance?

What do you think?

(Perhaps I should just listen to the radio on my hour and a half commutes, rather than pondering things like this.)

 

Well, what I'm wondering is this - Are we seeing a shift in the perception of what Christianity means? Will we, thirty or forty years down the road, look back at the time when people could call Christianity a religion of peace without a grin on their faces?

I remember a time when the religion of Islam was not considered threatening to anyone. Sharia was always considered to be a bit harsh by modern western societies, but it was an internal thing for the Muslims to deal with. Some Christians even admired cultures which embraced Sharia. I remember my Aunt and Uncle, who lived in Iran for a time and then Saudi Arabia, speaking with admiration of Muslim culture, remarking on the amazingly low crime rate. They, though devout Christians, saw nothing wrong with Sharia; and even commented that America would be better off if we embraced a similar code.

Someone saying they were Muslim was not perceived as a potential threat to your safety in those days. There wasn't the call to arms within the Christian community to battle Islam, that I perceive to exist now.

Admittedly, that was before 9/11 and AlQaieda, and the Taliban. But what brought us to 9/11 and AlQaieda, and the Taliban? The so called "Sword Verses" of the Qur'an were considered obscure, archaic passages within Islam in the seventies. There was no drive within any part of Islam to destroy the west, or to attack Christianity. Islam could truly be called, within certain limitations, a religion of peace. What changed? Why did militancy develop within Islam?

The shift began with the Palestinian nationalist movements in the seventies. It was quiet, and subtle, but Islam began to be used by the militants to gather supporters to their cause. It really picked up steam in the eighties, when Islam was used to gather supporters for the effort to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. America gave money and weapons to Osama Bin Laden and his AlQaieda to go battle the Soviets. AlQaieda means "base", specifically, the base from which Osama Bin Ladens' American armed religious fanatics were launched into Afghanistan. Extremist Islamic Mullahs were encouraged. The Saudis donated vast sums of money to establish religious schools in Pakistan. Islam was a banner under which the freedom fighters united.

But then, the consequences of fanning the flames of religious fanaticism came home to roost for America, for the Saudis, for the world. The fanatics didn't go away when the Soviets were defeated. The children who attended those religious schools (Madrassa) graduated, and became the Taliban. "Taliban" means "student", particularly "religious student." The fanatics of AlQaieda no longer had a purpose. They thought they had found a purpose when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden said to the Saudis, let us come home to defend our country, and the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. The Saudis looked at all of these armed religious fanatics and said, "No thanks. You people just stay over there in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We've asked the Americans to help us." The Saudis knew that when the fighting was over, and they asked the Americans to leave, they would promptly do so. They knew that these religious nuts they had helped arm and train to fight the Soviets would not so easily go away. And the enmity between AlQaieda and America began - a slow seething hatred, born of bruised pride and shame at not even being welcome in their own countries.

So, there was a chain of events which brought us to where we are today, and there was a slow evolution of what Islam meant to both Muslims and non-Muslims. It wasn't quick, like a bolt of lightening. It was a slow, creeping slide.

Are we seeing a slide within Christianity? Is this the beginning of something which has the potential of changing what Christianity means to both Christians and non-Christians? Are we perhaps looking at the beginning of a "Tenth Crusade," to follow the last nine, at sometime in the future? In fifty years, will Christianity look more like the religion of our parents, or more like the religion of the Crusaders?

 

Slight twist from the other side of the argument: Why is it that this country has a lot of "Islamaphobia," while no one ever debates the flip-side of that. Islamic countries who are "phobic" of any other religion and are willing to do something about it..

The fact is, statistically, in the last 3 decades if there is an "event" involving death/mayham/destruction in the name of religion, those committing said atrocities do so in the name of Islam, therefore, being distrustful of a Muslim may be a simple as "playing the odds."

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...c-evangelicals-to-choose/?iid=article_sidebar

 

When the temple was being rebuilt in Jerusalem the workers kept their "arms" very close at hand and listened for the trumpets call to arms. Earlier David was told to keep his Bow arm strong. There is a verse that says: for as much as is in you be at peace with your neighbor. What is in me now is a glowing ember of distrust, dislike, and determination not to be a target anymore. Have made my mind up to retaliate with force any assault from "them". My oldest is just a few days from returning home from his third deployment. He has a family to return to that loves him. Some will not make that journey alive and some not whole/uninjured. Here in the US we have been attacked and assaulted by muzzies and our legal system only called the latest a work place violence. A muzzie stood up on a table and killed many and wounded many more while shouting allah akbar. He should be publically hung but our mamby pamby politicos will not allow it. To answer your question about rising militancy in the ranks of Christiandom---it is about time to stop being targets, sell one of our cloaks, and buy a sword. "A man that will not provide for his family is worse than an infidel". Protection is providing also.

 

My apologies for not getting to this in a timely manner. I just stumbled upon it. No offense intended in any of the following.

So you know where I'm goming from; I believe in a live and let live in most all things. I am friends with pagans, Buddists, Taosist, and a few Muslims. I think they're all decent people, and I try not to offend them. I wish they were christians, but that is not to be.

Viewed from the outside, Christianity does appear to be getting more militant and in your face. What is happening is The Holy Spirit is and has been moving more in the hearts of believers, and there is more fire in their hearts. We are being lead more to do the right thing and stand up to evil more. I have to agree with Minuteman in what he said.

Our only real enemy is Satan. He is using the smallness and desperation in man to create more problems, and to attack and neutralize Christianity. The real threats we face are Satan (the instigator of all evil) and Marxism and Islam. The last two are merely weapons created by Satan to cause us trouble. However, they are true threats that must be dealt with or we will be ground into the dust.

While angry with people for the evil they perpetrate, mostly, I do not hate them. I still have work to do in that area. I do not have to hate them to kill them in self defense, whether per-emptively, or in reaction to an attack. I have the right and duty to do so. I do not relish the thought, but one does what one must. God has set the rules that I must follow, and will do my best to follow them in the spirit intended.

Some sites like www.warriortalk.com would lead some to think that there are quite a few thousands of fighting men ready to go on a crusade. Mostly, that is not true, self defense is the goal. Knowing people like we all do, I'm sure that somewhere there are militant Christians willing to fight fire with fire for almost the same reasons that the Jihadists do. Never met any, but I'm sure they do exist.

The KKK is not a Christian group no matter what they say, and their bogus claims cause us no end of embarrassment and resentment.

Hope this helps.
jim

 

Thanks to all who have replied. At least I know it's not my imagination. There is a definite trend within at least parts of Christianity to move in a more militant posture; whether it's called an awakening, a change, a slide, it seems to be something different than what has been the status quo for the past few decades anyway.

Anyone care to attempt to explain it, or suggest a possible end-game? Is Islam the culprit? Is this militancy within Christianity seen as a reaction to other stimuli? Is it an evolution of Christianity whose explanation lies within the religion itself? Does this phenomenon exist only in Evangelical Christianity, or does it exist in the broader Christian community?

 

I do consider myself a devout Christian. I have problems with both the contradictions between the old and new testament and organized religion of most ilks. So, Evangelical, ..... no. IMHO, The problems with the Bible are that it started by the spreading, of word of mouth, by 12 different disciples, and I believe much has been lost or garbled in the telling. Nothing was written down for a long time. Maybe centuries even. Then you have various translations of the written word that also cause confusion.
.
As I understand things, the New Testament starts with the lead up to the birth of Jesus Christ and goes forward. The Old Testament starts with the beginning of Earth and Mankind. things are a whole lot more miltant and bloody in the Old Testament, than in the New. You cannot tailor your life only to the New Testament any more than you can to just the Old Testament. There are lessons to be learned from both. Neither one can be ignored.
.
Now to your question about this Awakening or whatever. Very few people are still around who were old enough during the depression to truly understand hard times. Myself included. We are for the most part all "let the good times roll" people. It's all we have ever known. Alot of smart people are either good students of history, or can see the signs as to where we are headed. It's not so much a religious thing as it an awakening of hard times a comming, and that there are going to be divisions along many lines, and strong tribes of all ilk are going to be neccessary to survive. Alot of peace. brotherhood, tolerance, and forgiveness is for some time going to go by the wayside.
.
It would appear Islam and at least their radical factions (some sleepers among the so called peaceful if that truly exists), are pushing out in the world attacking all other religions groups and getting ready to survive in their own way.
.
The USA attempts to spread their own brand of dogma and world policing far and wide as well. I do not approve of what Islamists are doing any more than I approve of what the USA is doing.
.
We are way over extended, and way over due for a major fall. When it happens, and it will, we are all in for a rude awakening. Those of us survivors and preppers will be far ahead of most of the world.

 

I believe that the verses about turning the other cheek was about insult and not injury ,I have always felt that left with few options one should defend hisself against harm as best he can. I don't forget who the real enemy is and it is not islam or budda or hari krishna it is the devil evil and simple . I do think that christianity is getting more militant at least in the smaller churches and I am ok with it.

 

Tac, want to add a point about where our Bible came from. Jesus lived from 0-33 AD, Paul, the Disciples, and family wrote letters, "reports", and replies to problems in the early days of a budding set of church groups scattered about. All these were written mostly by 50-70 AD. They were being kept as treasures and were beginning to be accumulated by some and copied. By the end of the first century they were close to what we have today but was solidified in the third by the organized church leaders. This is not an exact timeline but close. Now back to rising "militantancy". IMO, it is a rising general feeling that we are getting tired of being a target. Once we get ticked off enough we will as a nation rise up--just hope it is not too late when we do.

 

Well, when you consider about 80% of this country has Christian beliefs and this country is generally militarily minded (AKA Don't tread on me) I guess you could say American Christians have that type of mindset but it is not a go out and kill everyone for not being in my religion mindset as much as it is a mindset of don't try to hurt me and my family or your dead. Defensive, not offensive.

 

And a problem that is to whom?

 

Are you asking me? Not sure what you mean.

 

It should not be a problem to defend oneself, family, friends, nation with the necessary tools. The Bible has several warring leaders pictured quite well. Many of the Judges were warriors, David urged to keep their bow arms strong. The temple builders kept their weapons close and listened for the alarm sounds. I like this quote from the Bible..." For as much as is in you live at peace with your neighbor". Couple of key words--as much as is in you and neighbor. We are to be gentle as a dove but wise as a serpent. You have to deal with snakes occasionally and deal with them in a way that serpents understand---stomping on their heads with your black assault heeled boot.

 

I concur. Not looking for any kind of a fight, even trying to avoid one. But if backed into a wall....

Jim

 

not enough coffee.

butting out.

 

Your rather lengthy reponse to my previous post in this thread is deserving of an equally comprehensive reply, but as the thread is essentially about "Militant Christianity", I shall save the reply for a different thread.


The short answer is that my wry bit of pictorial satire is more aimed at the framing of the term "militant" in relation to religious belief, and disbelief in religion.

Some Christians are embracing the expression notion of "christianity militancy" partly as a reaction to "New Atheism" but also partly by a significant number of influential religious conservatives wishing to promote the idea of seeing Jesus Christ through the prism of a conservative ideology; of Christ as a kind of muscular religious Rambo, rather than as a more "liberal" Jesus meek and mild "turn the other cheek" (pacifist) kind of a guy.


Framing the term "militant" in public discourse and debate...who gets to frame the term and what meaning is given to the term when applied to particular individuals; and particular political and religious organisations is a legitimate matter of enquiry, discussion and critique.



The picture in my previous post above, shows three particular readily identifiable individuals who are described as "militants" by the media and by some segments of society. It cannot reasonably be inferred from the individuals shown above (edit: in post #17) , that militant religious people are crazy or violent (although sometimes that is the case)..nor that atheists are peaceful, enlightened, intellectuals (although sometimes that is not the case), nor indeed that the individuals illustrated, are actually representative of Christians, Muslims or Atheists more broadly. Much depends on what one means by the term "militant" and in what particular context this term is applied...To make the inferrence to the general (christians, muslims and atheists) from particular Christian, Muslim and atheist individuals is logically fallacious and absurd. However, I do recognise that some people may fall into that trap.