Battle Plans Part 1

 

Battle plan for the culture war. (Rom 12:17-21)

- Repay no one evil for evil, 

- but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.

- If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

- Beloved, never avenge yourselves, 

- but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 

- To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

- Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Lets get into it!

Firstly, I am going to try and pick a topic that is least controversial. Of all the controversial topics, it doesn't behoove me or you to try and break down something that needs a more nuanced application. So for this reason I am going to use "Mask Mandates."

It is important that you keep in mind, that in order for this to work you the reader have to 1. agree that mask mandates are either good or bad, but not neutral. 2. You must also agree that God would have a position on the matter.

So our opening complaint is that masks mandates are some form of evil. And as to what form of evil they are, it would be control, by way of fear-mongering. We therefore cannot then repay that evil with the same evil. Nor can we repay that evil for another type of evil.

One verse in and already we have tripped over one of the biggest problems of philosophy and religion. The nature of evil. What it is? In order to NOT do it, we must have some kind of idea of what it is so that we can abstain.

We beg the question when we say that mask mandates are a type of evil. Or that control via fear is the method that is evil. 

But lets say for at least a moment that we know that it is evil because we have a cheat sheet, and that "control via fear" is evil #1. So then we can simplistically say, "Don't repay 'control via fear' with 'control via fear.'" In other words, don't be a hypocrite.

I call that "simplistically" because of the set up. I however believe that evil takes many forms and applies itself in a variety of ways. Formulaically I would be inclined to say, "Don't repay Evil '1' with Evil 'X'."

If we can define 'X' in the above formula, then we follow the formula. If we cannot define 'X' we at least remain free of hypocrisy by not repeating what we are calling evil.

...

The next part of the passage almost begs us to define 'X'. "...but whatever is honorable in the sight of all."

Can we all just stop and give a slow clap for Paul's timelessly simple way to state what is clearly NOT SIMPLE!!!

Clap..... Clap..... Clap

Why waste time defining 'X' when we can just do that one thing that everyone will look at and say, "Gee-wilikers, that is so honorable."

We haven't even finished the first verse and we've tripped over the other half of the biggest problem of philosophers and religious devotees, objective morality.

We could hope that what Paul meant was "honorable in a selective selective sense, gauging who is in the crowd." And lets see if that is even a probable solution.

"Don't repay Evil '1' with Evil 'X', but gauge who is witnessing your interactions and do the honorable thing to that group."

I suppose that is a possibility. Couple this idea with the next verse about living peaceably and I think it works.

However this requires foresight. An almost purposeful intent to rock the boat in one way, but not the other. 

...

Keep in mind that this selective honorable thing cannot be part of your defined 'X'. If that selective honorable thing isn't part of 'X' then we have a consistent approach...so far. Even though it may require some staging. If there is some "staging" taking place, that doesn't lessen the authenticity of the position.

Example: The speech from Chaplin's "The Great Dictator." The staging of such a speech doesn't discount that we "...are not machines... [we] are men."

I recall from memory, that some of the Freedom Riders interactions from the 1960's in the USA, were "staged." Not because they were all a farce, but because those Freedom Riders knew if they did X, those in power would respond Y. And if Y were genuinely evil, that the people, all the people, would see the evil with their own eyes and demand that it stop.

And it worked. It worked because the people saw that for as much as not sitting in the back of the bus was an evil, that the received punishment for not doing so was so far beyond repaying one evil for another evil. In fact the resolution that was won in those times was that in fact, the rule was evil, and the disregard of the evil rule was good. 

So when that which was good was repaid with evil, the nation rose up and demanded that Jim Crow laws be abolished. And they were. So "staging" some response isn't disingenuous. In fact, if the circumstances require it, it's almost necessary.

...

What a great tie in to the next verse, "don't avenge yourself." Because had it not been for national sympathy, relations between black Americans and white Americans may have spiraled into oblivion. I know this won't be a popular opinion in the present climate, but America needed the bravery of those Freedom Riders and it needed the sympathy of those not directly affected in order to course correct. 

The former being almost exclusively on the shoulders of the black community and the later almost exclusively on the shoulders of the white community. (Of course we could have just been awesome, but as I look back in time, I see varying degrees of awesome mixed with varying degrees of suck!)

Likewise these mask mandates saw sympathy generated as the rules became more dogmatic. 

Never forget what they did in the name of sciencepic.twitter.com/05C6NLrwt7

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) February 17, 2023

Never forget what they did to us.🧅🧅 pic.twitter.com/FGHgZ9CXWD

— Mark (@markmaycot) February 17, 2023

The futility of masking a toddler should have been perceived from the start. But we ignored that like we ignored the humanity of others.
...

I wish now I would have picked a different topic. Something with a resolved past. Because from what I can see not many are "avenging themselves" against mandates. Instead what has been fostered is a growing indignation towards government overreach. This could still resolve in a number of different ways.

It could resolve in reform in what issues rise to the level of national security. As a result we foster careful advice, caution people, and only when necessary do we impose restrictions.

It could resolve into a more unruly population. Which may result in common-sense-type rules, like traffic laws being ignored because NO ONE PUTS BABY IN THE CORNER!

It could resolve into a more independent mode of thinking. We take in information, check all our internal boxes, if the risk rises to a personal level of concern, at that point we start heeding advice. 

It could be a little bit of each. 

What it cannot resolve to is for the government to stay heavy with the hand of edicts from on high, because that would not be a resolution. Instead, that'd be perpetuation.

...

Which may be why we should be leaving room for God's wrath. 

Lets go back to our "define 'X'" a couple of paragraph's back. If God is a god of justice, and his judgements are all righteous then really all of his wrath could be summed up in the justice due people who do 'X'. If we go and fetch up all the justice we can acquire for ourselves against 'X' doer's, we may miss some, or we may, with our imperfections and all actually achieve some evil, resulting in justice needing done to us.

We could look to historical accounts of God's justice/wrath or, which is what I suggest, we could allow God to do what God wants with a given situation, and what is Just will be achieved because God doesn't have to pussyfoot around with our involvement.

"Don't repay Evil '1' with Evil 'X', but gauge who is witnessing your interactions and do the honorable thing to that group. God brings justice to those who do 'X' so leave room in your response for God to respond."

...

Culturally speaking, it was far more common in the past to feed and quench the thirst of strangers. Most travel was done on foot, or at the very least the prospect of traveling was more laborious and so should you find someone hungry or thirsty, the modus operandi of the time would have been to share what you could.

Now some will try and take the feed him, give him drink to be metaphorical. I think you can, but you complicate things. I think the furthest I'd be prepared to go into the metaphorical is to honor the dignity of the human, and not deny them basic necessities that you have, based on their status as your enemy.

In other words, just because someone is your enemy, you gain nothing that glorifies God, nor wins  your enemy over by allowing your enemy to exist in a status unbecoming of human dignity.

Examples, a truly hungry/thirsty enemy. An enemy wounded, but in need of help. An "enemy" surrounded by their enemies all hellbent on retribution. (Think being in the wrong neighborhood, in the wrong car, wearing the wrong colors.)

"Don't repay Evil '1' with Evil 'X', but gauge who is witnessing your interactions and do the honorable thing to that group. God brings justice to those who do 'X' so leave room in your response for God to respond, without expectation."

Which leads to our final passage. Do not be overcome by evil. Rather overcome evil with good.

This leads directly back to the second half of the first verse, nullifying the selective position we resigned ourselves to. Doing good isn't just a "put your trash in the trash and the recycling in the recycling. This is another verse, said slightly different, that beckons us to know what is good and what is evil.

Previously I humored the selective response because it didn't seem at the time to be a needed investment of our time to define THE GOOD. However, because we now have to define it, to overcome evil, it seems silly to allow the selective in that prior point, but the objective for this point.

Which then requires a even more formal plan on our part.

"Don't repay Evil '1' with Evil 'X', but do the GOOD. God brings justice to those who do 'X' so leave room in your response to 'X' for God to respond. Don't let Evil 'X' overcome you but overcome Evil 'X' with GOOD."

In "The problem with, 'The Problem of Evil'" I break evil down to being willful rejection of God. And by proxy, I'd say that God's will is therefore THE GOOD and thusly we have:

"Don't repay rejecting God via fear-mongering to control people with some other rejection of God, but do God's will. God brings justice to those who reject him, so leave room in doing God's will for God to respond. Don't let the rejection of God overcome you but overcome that rejection with doing God's will."

Now this seems like a very Christian thing to say. But it leaves a big gapping hole. What is God's will?

I am persuaded that there are 2 categories of God's will.
1. The all the time, be this type of person, God's Will
2. Given this set of circumstance, do this, God's Will

This, is where I must leave you to ponder for myself. Good luck.