|
|
Random Dialog
|
Is the term "prayer warrior" appropriate?
|
|
I seem to be having a bit of trouble with this terminology, especially if I am praying for peace. It is also reminiscent of one of the concerns I have with the American church: the individuals in it seem to be far more largely concerned about the life of the unborn (which is a very important concern) but seems to be relatively silent regarding the lives of the memebers of the U.S. military, as well as the lives of foreigners. Why is this?
|
 Tate 07/16/2012 17:18 |
|
| |
Craig from Illinois
|
07/16/2012 19:53 |
Tate, fellow peacemaker here. I agree with your sentiments. I'm sure the term "warrior" is intended to be innocent among the club of Christians who call themselves that. But it's not a peaceful notion to non-believers, especially to those who consider themselves enemies of Christ. And so one may say, good! But I have a question. Who is our enemy and what does Jesus say to do to them? Look at Matthew 5:43-48.
The term "warrior" means "a brave or experienced soldier or fighter." I know many who would call themselves "prayer warriors". They have good intentions. They pray for everyone and everything. But it is more than just semantics at play I believe. I wish we as Christians would consider not using the warrior, fighter, soldier lingo and imagery. I know - I know... the bible says we can. But really, this may be a time and place in history that we should consider dropping that language.
Good topic, Tate. I would love to discuss this further with you and others.
Craig
|
| |
John T
|
07/17/2012 13:33 |
I liked the way John Piper described being in a "war-time mentality" in our Christian lives. That is, we don't go through life in an uncaring way, but rather we're on alert, active in the word, ready to be where we're needed, ready, yes, even to "fight" for what's right when needed. I like the imagery because I know what it's like to struggle with sin and it certainly is a battle.
John
|
| |
Tate
|
07/18/2012 05:57 |
Thank you, Craig. You have seemed to hit things spot on. I know that people who use the warrior imagery are well-intentioned, but, as you said, more than semantics may be at play. It is as though many Americans have gotten used to a state of constant international conflict and seem to use language without much second thought.
I think that one of the main problems is how revered the U.S. military is as an institution and the association in many Christians' minds of supporting all military endeavors with being patriotic. I suppose this leads to the question of how Christians should relate to the State.
It seems to me that it should be one of great skepticism, to say the least, as the State claims a monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographical area. Clearly any organization claiming this monopoly has the potential for much abuse. Yet many will point to Romans 13 as a command for Christians to be submissive to the "governing authorities." My trouble is in gleaning what is fully meant in this passage. I've come to the conclusion that Paul may very well have been talking about something other than the State, as there are many states who have outlawed even practicing Christianity. And in Paul's own case, the state held plenty of terror for those who did right. Hence, I've also come to this conclusion: if the state passes a law that is consistent with God's commands, such as prohibitions of murder, it should be followed; if it is inconsistent, such as prohibiting the free assembly of churches, it should be disregarded. Practically, this leaves the state irrelevant as a source of ethical authority (but perhaps not irrelevant in the sense of consequences of choosing to disobey when its rules are unjust).
Forgive me if you feel as though I've gotten too far from the topic at hand, but I believe that clearly defining how the Christian should relate to the State would go a long way towards ceasing to rationalize away needless violence, simply because it is done by one's own government {I suppose I imagine that American Christians would be far more outspoken against a military with a presence in over 100 countries and engaged in multiple wars of choice if it weren't their own).
John, I can certainly understand how struggling with sin is a spiritual battle, but I don't think a "war-time mentality" is necessary to be caring, alert, active in the Word, or even being ready to "fight." Spiritual warfare should be distinct from physical warfare, as it would seem that the spiritual battle is largely being lost to the extent that humans fight each other. The enemy's purpose is to steal, kill, and destroy (which seems to be the essence of war). So I think we should give at least as much thought to living at peace with one another as far as it depends upon us as we think about being spiritual warriors.
|
| |
Mike Mead
|
07/19/2012 23:51 |
Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
1Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
2Timothy 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
Philippians 2:25 But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need;
2Timothy 2:3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
I'm not sure what believers you are hanging out with that are not as concerned about our militrary as they are the unborn. I caetainly have not been around them.
The idea of Spiritual Warriors shows up throughout the scripture. We are in a spiriutal battle every day. Be strong and courageous. Fight the good fight.
|
| |
Craig from Illinois
|
07/20/2012 13:20 |
I don't disagree with the idea of "being on the ready" or prepared with the armor of God. Not at all. My point is that when we use those terms and metaphors, our audience may not understand what we are referring too.
I have found it important to consider the audience when I speak. Will my choice in words create conflict or be an invitation to relationship? Will my words "draw in" or cause withdraw?
Mike, you have correctly pointed out many scriptures that use warfare terminology and concepts. In time it would be important for a new believer to study those ideas. However, I am saying that there are times in which Christians are not sensitive to the lack of understanding non-believers may have about spiritual warfare. All they hear is that we are fighting soldiers in God's army and our objective is to destroy the enemy. Then they hear that if they are not believers in Jesus, then they are enemies of God.
So, my solution is to abandon all that warfare vocabulary when I speak of prayer, evangelism and discipleship. There are plenty of other positive metaphors to use. For example, fruit, vines & branches, mustard seeds, etc.
|
| |
Tate
|
07/24/2012 16:40 |
"I'm not sure what believers you are hanging out with that are not as concerned about our militrary as they are the unborn. I caetainly have not been around them."
Mike, what I am referring to here is the general sentiment I get among "conservative Christians" who are quite vocally anti-abortion but no so anti-war.
|
| |
Mike Mead
|
07/25/2012 14:04 |
I guess I consider the censervative Christians that I know to be pro-life not "Aanti-abortion". So, I guess it depends on your definition of anti-war. I find myself, again along with the Christians that I know, to be pro-life here as well. No one in their right mind wants war for war's sake. However, I do believe that it is the responsibility of the strong to defend the weak, whether it is the unborn or the over 1 million Iraqi's killed by Hussein or those tortured and murdered under the Taliban. Maybe this is ust semantics, but this is how my friends and I see it.
|
| |
Tate
|
07/30/2012 03:19 |
I don't think it's just semantics. It is fundamentally a different understanding of what "anti-war" means. Warmongers will never sell war for war's sake. There is always some purported noble goal such as a "humanitarian" mission. Humanitarian concerns are rarely, if ever, the actual motivations for an empire to go to war. There is a lot of money to be made by war contractors and the military-industrial complex, as well as the goal of ensuring that U.S. exporters have favorable conditions overseas.
And what are the effects of these foreign interventions? Undoubtedly, many Iraqis were killed by Saddam Hussein, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians perished as a result of U.S. action and U.S.-backed UN sanctions (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp). The UN's own agency, UNICEF, reported nearly 500,000 children dying because of the sanctions. The U.S. then made things worse by deliberately bombing infrastructure such as water sanitation facilities during the first Gulf War, which spread infectious diseases. It would seem quite strange to call this the strong defending the weak.
But even if it were the case that the U.S. created a net benefit to Iraq or Afghanistan (which is far from a forgone conclusion), is it really the strong defending the weak when so much of the money used to pay for the U.S. military is borrowed? It spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined (but strangely requires foreigners to finance it). The U.S. government is bankrupt and cannot afford these wars.
At the root of this problem, I think there is a major problem for Americans in looking at their own central government objectively. If the governments of other countries treated Americans like the U.S. government treats foreigners, there would be massive outrage. For example, the sitting U.S. president assassinates Americans with predator drones, as well as suspected terrorists overseas in countries such as Pakistan. Would you think it correct if a foreign government assassinated the U.S. president to defend Americans, or used predator drones to bomb bad guys on American soil? If there was a foreign occupying army in the U.S. would you think resistance would be in self-defense or terrorist action? Americans seem to let so much of the atrocities that its own government commits slide while they would not give other governments such a pass.
Hence, I feel comfortable calling anyone who is against abortion but supports U.S. military intervention abroad as "anti-abortion," as it would be a bastardization of the word, "pro-life," to call them such. I used to be among this group of people, with beliefs that were probably not dissimilar from your friends'. But I came to see the error in my thinking was not that I liked war, but lacked much information regarding it. Earlier, I thought that the Iraq war was necessary to protect Americans (since I was fed the untruth that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction). Later finding that the Iraqi government possessed no such weapons, I tried to rationalize the war effort by saying that it deposed a despot and was a noble effort for the good of the people of Iraq. But subsequently I learned about the large number of civilians that were killed by American forces (as well as the Christians displaced by the war and are now more strongly persecuted). The rationalization that U.S. efforts made Iraqi or Afghan lives better went out the window. But is that really the purpose of the U.S. military? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution say that its purpose is to provide for the "common defense," and not these wars of aggression? Is it really fair that those who wish not to fund the warfare state are forced to by way of taxation and inflation? So I came to the conclusion that not only were these "noble" goals not attained by the U.S. military, but are not noble at all.
Lastly, I would like to recommend a Christian anti-war writer who has been very influential in my thinking. His name is Laurence Vance. Here is a link to one of his articles (as well as an essay about Christians and war): http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance237.html
|
|
