*** w09 9/1 p. 23 When You Are Offended ***
Does this mean that if we are the victim of a crime or are threatened in some other way, we should just meekly accept it? By no means! When Paul said, “Keep conquering the evil with the good,” he did not mean that a Christian should be obsessed with being a martyr. On the contrary, when attacked, we certainly have the right to defend ourselves.
_____________________________
Let's try to avoid the slippery slope in this discussion, if we can.
If an aggressor attacks your family, you are legally justified in defending with equal force . . . even deadly force, if circumstances warrant.
If we extrapolate self-defense to a national scale, why wouldn't a (just) war be morally justifed--and not simply justified, but actually warranted?
_____________________________
This question faced the Early Christian church, of course.
Using Jesus' surrendering ethos of 'turn the other cheek' many followers felt you had to lie down and die rather than strike a blow.
Others, viewing life as a sacred gift from God, drew a distinction between an evil life and a Christian one!
By the time Constantine had come along, it was clear to generations of Christians that Jesus wasn't going to return "quickly," and more prudent measures of a self-sustaining nature were in order.
One of the two most brilliant philosophers of the Church, Augustine, crafted THE JUST WAR theory.
If certain parameters were in place which justified a reprisal, Christians were perfectly moral in putting down lethal aggressors.
This was under the guidelines of Romans 13: 1,2 which clarified secular authorities (Emperors, kings, etc.) stood in place BECAUSE God had put them there. Being "in subjection" to these Superior Authorities mean fighting at their behest against enemies of the state.
______________________________
Until the advent of Protestantism, which switched responsibility around from listening to the Church and secular leaders, personal conscience--was unnecesary. Obedience to superior authority was the only obligation to true believers.
Under Protestant "conscience" each person decided for themselves (in prayer, of course!)
Modern denominations were often divided by passive resistance, pacifist sentiment, and conscientious objection.
It took a long time for the U.S. Government to allow a set-aside (alternate service) for legal remedy to persons of religious conscience.
Eventually, this softened to conscience only (without regard to religion)!
_______________________________
Jehovah's Witness were denied access to personal conscience by the Watchtower Governing Body's insistence on:
1. Twisting the interpretation of Romans 13
2. Encouraging martyrdom by flouting secular authority in the name of "Christian conscience" which was a thinly disguised command from the GB.
3. Threats of disfellowship if legal remedy was accepted (Alternate Service) instead calling it a "compromise" of their Faith.
__________________________________
Jehovah's Witnesses have, for almost a century, deflected their true policy of "neutrality" by stating Jesus would "soon" make war unnecessary.
Just as early Christians in Jesus' day and the centuries which followed, slowly realized no such events were likely to occur--so too, Jehovah's Witnesses will
have to face practical facts.
What is the proper Christian remedy to Terrorism?
Has the Watchtower made clear whether young Christians should join the military and defend their family and nation?
The silence is deafening.