Zimbabwe Methodists condemn violence

How about that - the church condemns violence. How very revolutionary. I wish I’d thought of that.

No, not grouchy. In fact, I had one of the best weddings in 25 years of ministry yesterday - with a splendid reception as well. And before you ask, no, I do not have a hangover - I was the driver! No, the comment comes from my usually sarky self.

But there is a serious point here. That the church has to condemn violence among Christians themselves and as the occasion arises demonstrates - does it not? - that we have utterly failed to inculcate dispositions and habits of nonviolence as absolutely fundamental in the formation of Christian character. But don’t get me started - it would only encourage DH to respond with his “lion of Judah” [expletive deleted].

Kim, why do you find the need to curse when in fact Scripture DOES mention that Jesus is the “Lion of Judah”? Is your response to curse “Godly” in light of what I said? Also, how does one define violence? I think if one looks at the throwing out of the moneychangers independent of Jesus being involved that anyone would say that the actions of throwing the moneychangers out was a “violent act”. Let alone the screeming against the Pharisee’s for their actions. Again I’m not against what Jesus said or the way he did it because I believe the way Jesus responded to these situations were perfect even though they were different than other times where Jesus was soft and less harsh. When one also looks at the OT in conjunction with those things it even confirms that at times a harsh response may be needed depending on the situation.

I do agree with the Methodists in condemning the violence in Zimbabwe because the violence is being done more by the ousted government than the opposition. The fact is Mugabe is a tyrannt and it is evident by his violence that this should be condemned.

Richard thanks for posting this. It is clear that the violence by Mugabe and his supporters must be condemned.

Mugabe was certainly raised as a Catholic, DH - what makes you say that he isn’t a Christian? I can’t find any reference to his having renounced his faith.

Well saying one is a Christian and being one are two different things. Being “raised a Catholic” doesn’t mean one is a Christian. Also, “by their fruit you shall know them”. The fact that he stole hundreds of thousands peoples lands and then endorsed the forced imprisonment of those people is enough “fruit” to know that this person seems to truly not be a Christian. Beth, the fact remains to me that this is NOT Christian vs. Christian violence.

“not everybody who says Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven.”

Beth, I never said that everyone who sins is not a Christian. When it says “by their fruit you shall know them them” I believe it is self-evident. If a person claims to be a Christian and intentionally murders, steals, imprisons people who are known to be innocent then I don’t see how anyone can claim that person is a Christian. Applying your same logic we can say Hitler, Koresh, etc. are Christians. I think by the very nature of their particular claimed beliefs and the fruit of those Beliefs that we can say they are not Christians. Again it is not based on people sinning but the nature of a lifetime of fruit and the nature of specific belief between faith and Faith (if you get my drift) that one can get a strong idea if a person is a Christian.

Everytime I hear someone mentions history that murders at the hands of Christians have occurred I remind myself with the question: “Are they or were they truly a Christian in the first place?” When one looks at what they have said, fruit of a lifetime of attitudes and actions, then one can get a pretty strong idea on these issues. Again, I’m not judging it is God’s Word: “Bt their fruit you shall know them”.

Again, dh, I would ask whether there is a single one of us who has not intentionally sinned sometime? I know that I have occasionally told the odd “white lie” to get out of unwelcome social engagements, I have certainly coveted my neighbour’s property (and probably her husband once or twice), I have had lust in my heart, I have failed to honour my parents, I break the Sabbath every week by working and shopping.

We are constantly told that no one sin is worse than another. So why is it okay for me to call myself a Christian whilst intentionally doing these things?

I must move in charmed ecclesiastical circles because I have never been told that all sins are much of a muchness, and anyone who suggests that genocide is no worse than using intemperate language on a blog comment is a certified bloody idiot.

Beth, I have never said that Salvation is by works. I’m still trying to understand how you continue to ask these questions when I have answered them. It isn’t going against teachings but a proper understanding of the passage “by their fruits you shall know them”. To me the fruits are works but are a lifestyle of an imbodiment of Christ. This doesn’t mean there are times we don’t embody Christ and don’t sin but that it is a heart attitude toward things of God. Also since Scripture mentions this then it isn’t judging it is dicerning. “Test the Spirits to see if they are from God.” I still believe that a person who is a Christian over a lifetime will embody the attitude of Christ. Again it is the heart that is the issue and an attitude of repentence that is an issue this isn’t “works”.

I also don’t believe that the Inquisitors were truly “Christians” and some of the Crusaders were not “Christians”. Also, I’m not suggesting that people who “look at fruit” are “perfect” in their observation of the fruit. So I believe the passage “By their fruit you shall know them” is “get a strong idea”. Fruits confirm the Faith that is already their but the fruits don’t lead to Faith. If a person never invited Christ into their heart that is a bad fruit and shows the person is not a Christian as well. Beth, your understanding on this issue seems to overlook this passage. I also believe that being a Christian is giving ones heart, soul and mind over to Christ. So being a Christian is being “Born Again”. Also, I believe there can be Christian Presidents if they have invited Jesus into their heart with fruit (fruit being heart attitude against sin and when sin have a humble attitude of repentence) that confirms that moment when they became Born Again.
I do believe we can call the Inquisitors extremists who happen to call themselves Christian. I believe that if one has that understanding then I probably would move to your direction on that particular point. I might not call them Christians in the literal sense but can call them “self-professed” Christian. Kind of a difference between christian and Christian. If you get my drift. Like I also mention the differencebetween faith and Faith.

Pam, thanks for the support on this matter. I think this statement “At least in terms of making moral and ethical judgements.” really makes me agree wholeheartedly. Within God’s realm all sin is equal except for the clarification that Paul makes on sexual sin here: “18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body” in 1 Cor. 6:18.

Pam, Mugabe never was a “freedom fighter”. To forcibly take land, money, etc. and give it to third parties is irrprehensible. Being a “Robin Hood” amounts to stealing. So with Mugabe he isn’t and never was a “freedom fighter” he was a stealer. How can a person say he promoted freedom when he stole? Very strand.

Whence the conclusion that because some sins are worse than others salvation is by works rather than by grace alone? Non sequitur.

I would add that there is a theological issue in Scripture that says that all sin is equal in God’s eyes, other than the caveat by the Apostle Paul, even though from a moral and ethical standpoint they are looked at reasonably and rationally differently.

I think we must be careful about having a thin understanding of faith, as if faith were simply cognitive, the noggin’s nod to (saving) “facts”. It is against that notion of faith that James reacts when he says that “faith without actions is dead” (James 2:26). And Paul, in his own way, agrees when he speaks of the “obedience of faith”, and when he says, “Surely you know that when you surrender yourselves as slaves to obey someone, you are in fact slaves of the master you obey - either of sin, which results in death, or of obedience, which results in being put right with God” (Romans 6:16). You can believe all the “right” things and still be in bondage. Classically put, faith means more than assent (assensus), more too than trust (fiducia), it involves loyalty (fidelitas), and it issues in love (caritas). It is not something that goes on inside your head, it is (as Wittgenstein would say) a “form of life”.

In George Linbecks’ famous example of the crusader who cleaves the Muslim’s skull as he shouts, “Christus est Dominus!“, his word is falsified by his deed - and, Barth would add, his deed is falsified by his word. This, I would suggest, is the case with Mugabe. It is not a case of “not liking” him. It is not even a case of saying that he is not a Christian. But it is to say that he is a bad Christian, a betrayer of the faith he claims to hold. Technically, he is not a heretic - heresy is a matter of false doctrine - but his behaviour certainly brings the church into disrepute. Mugabe’s salvation is another matter. My hope and prayer is that God in his transforming grace will yet see to it.

As for the salvation of non-Christians, we’ve been there and done that. Suffice it to say that a case - indeed a biblical case - can be made for it, indeed can be made for universalism. With respect to our beloved DH, I class (in recent times) Barth and von Balthasar as greater thinkers with whom to reckon.

I never said that it was by works for Salvation. I believe we CAN say Mugabe is not a Christian. Why else does the passage say “By their fruit you shall know them”? Again it seems that Beth continues to say that I believe in a “works based Salvation” when that is not the case. Beth, I would take it on your Sabbath thing and slandering thing that you probably have an attitude of repentence. All Christians have an attitude of repentence and a desire not to do intentional sins. Mugabe with respect to his “fruit” doesn’t seem to embody those things so one truly can’t say that this person is a Christian. Again, it isn’t the works that lead to Faith but the Faith is what leads to works. So for Beth to say I believe in a works based Salvation is a total fallacy in light of what I have said. To say he has “salvation” just because he was raised Catholic seems rather odd in light of Salvation being by Grace through Faith alone. “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.”
Beth I never said that certain sins are unforgivable. Also, who are you to say that Mugabe is a Christian just because he was raised within the church. Many people are raised in the church but aren’t Christians. Going to church doesn’t save a person. I don’t buy calling people who just attend church as being Christians let alone people who have no repentent heart toward sin that all Christians have as being Christians. I don’t consider it bunk to call the Inquisitors of the Inquisition as not being Christians. Just because something is in the name of Christ doesn’t mean it is Christian. This isn’t a works based Salvation but an understanding of what a Christian is. Again, I’m not saying I’m perfect in this observation but the passage on fruit implies like I have said for multiple times “a strong idea” to question a persons Faith in the first place based on the observation of apparent “insight into their heart standards”. I’m not going to sit here and let people call Hitler, Mugabe, etc. as Christians when in fact they aren’t by a clear observation of their “insight into their heart standards” that puts into question their apparent Faith in the first place.

Kim, I agree Salvation is not by head or mind alone but heart, soul and mind given over to Christ. I understand you don’t think it is possible but there are things that I believe in my job in electronics that I believe in my head that I don’t internalize to my heart and soul. The fact remains that to become a Christian that one must accept Christ into their heart, soul and mind at which point life transformation begins and the process of Sanctification starts. So I agree it is a form of life. It is a form of life that is beyond the head but includes the head “heart soul and mind(head)”.

Kim, I agree Salvation can come to non-Christians by becoming a Christian. I don’t see universalism supported in Scripture. “Except a man be Born Again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” in conjuction with the passage of what happens to those whose names are not written in the Lambs Book of Life. KIm, you say great thinkers here is a passage from Peter: “