Passivism as Virtue
It has come to my attention that a certain kind of self-righteous morality has been absorbed by a large minority of Americans. I speak of the dreaded and cowardly sin of passivism. This insidious belief is a form of narcissim that produces a reactionary and condencending attitude that rejects the right of the individual to defend themselves to the point of killing another human being.
Thus, since the individual doesn't have a right to kill then certainly the State doesn't have a right to wage war. As a result, the passivist rejects all forms of state-craft related to waging war whether it be offensive or defensive in nature. Of course, the passivist will defend their untenable and short-sighted position by saying IF we are attacked then we can defend ourselves, but then in only a limited sort of way. But when you ask the passivist which war would have been "acceptable" to meet their conditions you have to go as far back as the War of 1812! And even then, I'm not so sure they would have taken up arms to defend the nation being that the South practiced slavery at that time.
To justify their position they often site the many mistakes on the battlefield where men appear to have just thrown-away their lives or even more troublesome they claim that only the "poor" man fights the wars of the "rich" men. They might even go so far as to claim that "Christ" wouldn't wage war or serve in the military often referring to the "Sermon on the Mount" where Christ tells of the future kingdom of God where men will no longer wage war against each other, for example to "turn the other cheek" if someone strikes it in anger. All of these rationales have no basis in common sense nor acknowledge the free-will of man.
Battlefield Casualties: When you consider the number of men that serve in the armed forces verses the actual number of men that see battle then really battlefield deaths/injuries are quite small. The actual "state of war" that the passivists so fears is often quite insignificant when viewing war in its totality. Most of the time a state of peace exists to preoccupy the time of the soldier.
Poor Man v. Rich Man: Yes its true that the rich call the shots and the poor are made to follow. However, this has been the case since time immemorial. The rich are typically more intelligent hence they are richer than their poorer relatives because of the CHOICES they have made that put them in that position in the first place. Therefore, they are the ones that are going to do the "leading" since they had the know-how and money to train and equip themselves and their armies to defend/offend in war. Multiply that a thousand fold when a State is managed properly. I must remind you that poverty is not a virtue! There is nothing romantic about being poor and ignorant. It would be even more of a catastrophe if the "poor" and "dumb" lead us in battle. It goes without saying even though I just said it.
Sermon on the Mount: Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Kings and Lords have always been the commanders of armies and in fact war is often the "final argument of Kings". Remember when Christ was being tempted in the wilderness and Satan himself acknowledged that Christ COMMANDED the legions of Angels? Yep, he sure does. Remember that Christ's sermon was in regards to a future kingdom where Christ is the King of the World not just tiny Israel. How will he have attained that position, I dare ask knowing the answer? By VIRTUE OF WAR! The FIRST advent of Christ was 2000 years ago with the express mission of being the SAVIOR of the world. The SECOND advent of Christ which has not yet occurred see's Jesus Christ returning to Earth as the "KING" of the world. This is accomplished in his resurrection body, along with the resurrected ARMY of believers as calvary officers, invading and ATTACKING the earthly armies under the command of anti-Christ. You will note, at the battle of Armedgeddon which is located at the apex of the Eurasion-African continent, it is Christ who does ALL of the killing. Once the enemy forces are defeated, then a "state of peace" exists in which there will be no more war. Consequently, the rebellion is crushed and its leader, Satan, is incarcerated to prevent him from agitating the nations to wage war. Thus, peace is maintained for a thousand years per the Book of Revelation.
So in summary, passivism has no place for those who love freedom and for those who understand that man will always attempt to take what is not his thus we must defend ourselves and defence often requires going on the offensive as well. Passivism reflects a lack of a proper understanding of history and focuses more on self rather than the consideration of others over self. And finally, passivism remains the refuge of the faithless who do not know Bible Doctrine and have given themselves over to fear which I'm afraid, no pun intended, is often exhibited more by Christians than non-Christians. At the Judgement Seat of Christ, the "faithful" will be judged and the cowardly Christian will be shamed by the MILITARY glory of our Savior, Christ the Lord.
Thus, since the individual doesn't have a right to kill then certainly the State doesn't have a right to wage war. As a result, the passivist rejects all forms of state-craft related to waging war whether it be offensive or defensive in nature. Of course, the passivist will defend their untenable and short-sighted position by saying IF we are attacked then we can defend ourselves, but then in only a limited sort of way. But when you ask the passivist which war would have been "acceptable" to meet their conditions you have to go as far back as the War of 1812! And even then, I'm not so sure they would have taken up arms to defend the nation being that the South practiced slavery at that time.
To justify their position they often site the many mistakes on the battlefield where men appear to have just thrown-away their lives or even more troublesome they claim that only the "poor" man fights the wars of the "rich" men. They might even go so far as to claim that "Christ" wouldn't wage war or serve in the military often referring to the "Sermon on the Mount" where Christ tells of the future kingdom of God where men will no longer wage war against each other, for example to "turn the other cheek" if someone strikes it in anger. All of these rationales have no basis in common sense nor acknowledge the free-will of man.
Battlefield Casualties: When you consider the number of men that serve in the armed forces verses the actual number of men that see battle then really battlefield deaths/injuries are quite small. The actual "state of war" that the passivists so fears is often quite insignificant when viewing war in its totality. Most of the time a state of peace exists to preoccupy the time of the soldier.
Poor Man v. Rich Man: Yes its true that the rich call the shots and the poor are made to follow. However, this has been the case since time immemorial. The rich are typically more intelligent hence they are richer than their poorer relatives because of the CHOICES they have made that put them in that position in the first place. Therefore, they are the ones that are going to do the "leading" since they had the know-how and money to train and equip themselves and their armies to defend/offend in war. Multiply that a thousand fold when a State is managed properly. I must remind you that poverty is not a virtue! There is nothing romantic about being poor and ignorant. It would be even more of a catastrophe if the "poor" and "dumb" lead us in battle. It goes without saying even though I just said it.
Sermon on the Mount: Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Kings and Lords have always been the commanders of armies and in fact war is often the "final argument of Kings". Remember when Christ was being tempted in the wilderness and Satan himself acknowledged that Christ COMMANDED the legions of Angels? Yep, he sure does. Remember that Christ's sermon was in regards to a future kingdom where Christ is the King of the World not just tiny Israel. How will he have attained that position, I dare ask knowing the answer? By VIRTUE OF WAR! The FIRST advent of Christ was 2000 years ago with the express mission of being the SAVIOR of the world. The SECOND advent of Christ which has not yet occurred see's Jesus Christ returning to Earth as the "KING" of the world. This is accomplished in his resurrection body, along with the resurrected ARMY of believers as calvary officers, invading and ATTACKING the earthly armies under the command of anti-Christ. You will note, at the battle of Armedgeddon which is located at the apex of the Eurasion-African continent, it is Christ who does ALL of the killing. Once the enemy forces are defeated, then a "state of peace" exists in which there will be no more war. Consequently, the rebellion is crushed and its leader, Satan, is incarcerated to prevent him from agitating the nations to wage war. Thus, peace is maintained for a thousand years per the Book of Revelation.
So in summary, passivism has no place for those who love freedom and for those who understand that man will always attempt to take what is not his thus we must defend ourselves and defence often requires going on the offensive as well. Passivism reflects a lack of a proper understanding of history and focuses more on self rather than the consideration of others over self. And finally, passivism remains the refuge of the faithless who do not know Bible Doctrine and have given themselves over to fear which I'm afraid, no pun intended, is often exhibited more by Christians than non-Christians. At the Judgement Seat of Christ, the "faithful" will be judged and the cowardly Christian will be shamed by the MILITARY glory of our Savior, Christ the Lord.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 7:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home