Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

The Sixth Commandment and War

Recommended Posts

Staff

Tonight's question for the question box has to do with the sixth commandment and the idea of a just war. Here is the question: "The sixth commandment says "thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13). Is killing other human beings during times of war right for a Christian in light of the 6th commandment?"

 

The writer of this question went on to add that he thought I would be an ideal person to ask this question. He is no doubt referring to the fact that I am the son of a military family and was, for thirteen years, a combat officer in the United States Army. I don't think that gives me any special authority on this issue, but it certainly is true that I have put more thought into this issue than the average Christian probably has.

 

The first place we want to go is to the Bible, beginning with the sixth commandment. It is widely agreed that the word "kill" is better translated as "murder," which is how the NIV has it. So the prohibition is not against any killing at all, but against unjust killing. A rudimentary knowledge of Scripture will reveal that God does not forbid all killing of human beings; indeed, in many instances He has positively commanded it. Israel was not chided by God for killing the Canaanite peoples in their occupation of the Promised Land, but for not being thorough enough in their killing (1 Samuel 13). As early as Genesis chapter 9 God imposed the death penalty for murder. On the one hand this shows the value God places on human life, but on the other it renders null any claims to a universal prohibition against killing: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen. 9:6).

 

In general, there are two kinds of killing that are sanctioned in the Bible. The first is for the punishment of capital crimes. The Old Testament lays out a number of such cases, and murder is one of many crimes that warranted such punishment. The second situation was that of war. All through the Old Testament we see God's people at war with their enemies, and never are they criticized our charged for doing so. Therefore, it is plain to see that the Sixth Commandment does not prohibit these sorts of actions. This is reinforced when we find that the Hebrew word for "murder" in the commandment is a word that is never used when authorized punishment or war are in view. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 13:4, speaks of the civil magistrate as "God's servant to do you good," and adds, "he does not wield the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." So the quick answer to our question is this: the 6th commandment does not prohibit Christians from serving their country in time of war, nor from killing their fellow human beings in battle.

 

However, as is often the case in a world like ours, things are not quite so simple. The first thing we want to take note of is that we are not living in Old Testament Israel. Ancient Israel was the corporate, national people of God in the way no nation is today. America is not, despite our rhetoric, a Christian nation in any objective way. We have no right to assume that our enemies are the enemies of God. This makes things more difficult.

 

The first topic we usually come to is that of a "just war." Our own doctrinal standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, concedes to the civil authority the right to "wage war, upon just and necessary occasion" (XXIII.2). A just war is one that pursues the protection and establishment of justice. An unjust war is one that is waged for vindictive hatred or revenge or simple greed. St. Augustine said, "Righteous wars may be defined as wars to avenge wrongs."1

 

How much responsibility, then, does a Christian soldier have for the justice of the war in which he is involved? On the one hand, no army can have every soldier sitting in judgment on national policy. People in high office are entrusted, ultimately by God, for matters of high strategy, while the great mass of soldiers are entrusted, also by God, for serving obediently and well. I knew very well that as a commander I was not willing to allow individual soldiers to philosophize on the merits of higher policy.

 

What then are common soldiers' responsible for? The immediate answer is their own behavior. It is not acceptable to claim higher orders for atrocities such as the murder of non-combatants. This was the plea of the Nuremburg war criminals at the end of World War II and it was rightly rejected. Even a just war, therefore, does not justify every sort of violence. As a soldier, and especially as an officer in command of hundreds of other soldiers, I often reminded myself that I was only order away from the ruin of my career. There are, I was sure, orders I was not willing to obey or enforce but which would result in my lawful arrest and even imprisonment.

 

War is, by its very nature, anything but cut and dried, clean and neat. The VietNam War was a classic example of this. Many Christians gladly served in that war, utterly convinced from a close vantage point that the war was not only just but was a righteous defense of the weak. Yet of all the many people I have known who served in that war there were none without great regrets, questions, and even qualms. Christians may find contentment in the performance of their duty, while using every opportunity to promote justice, truth, and even peace.

 

Here, as in many thorny cases of ethics, we do well by returning to the great commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind… And love your neighbor as yourself" (Mt. 22:37-39). Given that framework for conduct, I never wanted to serve any cause, much less kill for any cause, unless it was not just technically "just" but "good" from that biblical standpoint. Raw conquest, or even economic advantage, is surely not a cause worthly of taking or risking life. But, for me, it was always an honor to risk my life for the weak and poor and disenfranchized, for justice and love, and yes, for the pursuit of peace. It was for those things that I became a soldier and that my fathers before me took up the sword. "Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus taught, "for they shall be called sons of God" (Mt. 5:9).

 

It is argued by Christian pacifists that Jesus commands us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies (Mt. 5:38-43). As the Bible makes clear, that is not a motive to fail to defend others for whom you are entrusted. And yet we must not be too quick to brush such matters aside. A Christian must wage war without hatred, must fight without seeking evil upon his foe. St. Augustine, I think, summed up the motive of the Christian in war:

 

That is, for sure, a tall order, and one for which Christian soldiers should be ever in prayer. If and when our armed forces are called forth to fight, we all should remember to pray for the lives, and yes, the hearts, of all our Christian brothers and sisters called by the nation and perhaps by God to wield the sword.

 

Source: http://www.tenth.org/resource-library/articles/the-sixth-commandment-and-war

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Great article. I agree. There are three reasons to kill another human being in the Bible; capital punishment, just warfare, and self-defense or defense of others lives. There are some pacifist Christians that do not believe in killing insects but the Bible allows hunting of animals and the killing of insects as well as humans as long as it is a righteous act as defined by the Scriptures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I simply cannot accept that war is justifiable. It is an act of the flesh. We go to war to promote secular, and too often "Christian", agendas. Myself, my Dad, my brother, my cousins, and one grandchild "went to war" as if it were a Christian duty. We no longer see it as a such. Defend the USA? Yes. The thing I heard most often years upon years ago was, "Yeah, but, ya know, if we don't fight 'em over thar, ya know, we'll hafta fight 'em over here, ya know.....".

 

War represents the failure of Christianity, our missionaries, our outreach programs, our $$$$, to "win." We're responsible for despicable government. No matter the branch of service, the prevalence of ugliest, detestable, disgusting profanity, of the consumption of alcohol and drugs, of horrendous sexual attacks (forced and otherwise) in the lands we wage war in, the ruthless disregard for innocent human life in cities, towns, countries, is in order to "win." Then we rejoice when "Johnny comes marching home," (except in the case of Vietnam).

 

I'm not bad-mouthing American service personnel. I'm talking about ill-conceived "paths to conquest." God forgive us for ignoring You. Let us not be led into temptation; on the contrary, deliver us from evil..

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
I simply cannot accept that war is justifiable. It is an act of the flesh. We go to war to promote secular, and too often "Christian", agendas. Myself, my Dad, my brother, my cousins, and one grandchild "went to war" as if it were a Christian duty. We no longer see it as a such. Defend the USA? Yes. The thing I heard most often years upon years ago was, "Yeah, but, ya know, if we don't fight 'em over thar, ya know, we'll hafta fight 'em over here, ya know.....".

 

War represents the failure of Christianity, our missionaries, our outreach programs, our $$$$, to "win." We're responsible for despicable government. No matter the branch of service, the prevalence of ugliest, detestable, disgusting profanity, of the consumption of alcohol and drugs, of horrendous sexual attacks (forced and otherwise) in the lands we wage war in, the ruthless disregard for innocent human life in cities, towns, countries, is in order to "win." Then we rejoice when "Johnny comes marching home," (except in the case of Vietnam).

 

I'm not bad-mouthing American service personnel. I'm talking about ill-conceived "paths to conquest." God forgive us for ignoring You. Let us not be led into temptation; on the contrary, deliver us from evil..

 

Given your premise outlined I'd say no that kinda war is not justifiable. One of "the" first things Obama did when taking office was to remove Just War Theory from Military academic institutions. The implied reasoning was that future warfare would be fought over resources. This is not the kinda warfare the OP was stating, but contrary to what you wrote the author stated:

 

Raw conquest, or even economic advantage, is surely not a cause worthly of taking or risking life. But, for me, it was always an honor to risk my life for the weak and poor and disenfranchized, for justice and love, and yes, for the pursuit of peace. It was for those things that I became a soldier and that my fathers before me took up the sword. "Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus taught, "for they shall be called sons of God" (Mt. 5:9).

 

Clearly, some people think of peacemakers as those declaring peace though reality itself does not correspond with such declaration. For example, my neighbor could be getting pounded by another person in a physical attack and he may declare peace though he is under attack. In order to truly make peace in this case the attacker needs to be subdued for true peace to be declared.

 

God forgive us for ignoring You. Let us not be led into temptation; on the contrary, deliver us from evil..

 

Your thoughts about the beginning of the Disciples' prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven"? There are two states of the Church: Militant and Triumphant. The beginning of the Lord's prayer seemingly sounds Militant to me.

 

Lastly, you ended with the thought that we should not be tempted by evil but to be delivered from evil. I'm curious, brother, do you think combating evil and subduing evil or actively searching evil out is unrighteous?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

 

Lastly, you ended with the thought that we should not be tempted by evil but to be delivered from evil. I'm curious, brother, do you think combating evil and subduing evil or actively searching evil out is unrighteous?

 

God bless,

William

 

Brother, WE do that in the name of all that's Holy, but with the most destructive of methods. HE is the ONE who combats evil, subdues it, and searches it out. He yearns to have Jesus leading the charge, not us, in and of ourselves. That means that humanity surrender to God's Will. It doesn't happen, obviously, worldwide. The USA, which endures so much on behalf of others, does not do it in the Name Above All Names, Jesus, but in order to advance or protect earthly boundaries, not for ourselves, but for others. How many among the "others" turn to Christ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

Brother, WE do that in the name of all that's Holy, but with the most destructive of methods. HE is the ONE who combats evil, subdues it, and searches it out. He yearns to have Jesus leading the charge, not us, in and of ourselves. That means that humanity surrender to God's Will. It doesn't happen, obviously, worldwide. The USA, which endures so much on behalf of others, does not do it in the Name Above All Names, Jesus, but in order to advance or protect earthly boundaries, not for ourselves, but for others. How many among the "others" turn to Christ?

 

I believe God ordained Government to combat evil and actively search it out. And I believe God uses us too, Government and the Church are the means by which God combats physical and spiritual evil.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

 

I believe God ordained Government to combat evil and actively search it out. And I believe God uses us too, Government and the Church are the means by which God combats physical and spiritual evil.

 

God bless,

William

 

I agree but too often the governments end up working against God's people and the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

I agree but too often the governments end up working against God's people and the Church.

 

We get this:

  • Luke 18:2 “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man.

because we do not:

  • Exodus 18:21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

 

We get this:

  • Luke 18:2 “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man.

because we do not:

  • Exodus 18:21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

God bless,

William

 

That's right. We need God fearing righteous leaders in government or else we end up with another totalitarian regime. This is often portrayed in the Bible as throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • The Second Commandment, Westminster and Images of Jesus

      by Brian Cosby     No, the Westminster divines weren’t intentionally attacking The Jesus Storybook Bible; but they probably would have taken issue with the pictures of Jesus.   I serve on the Theological Examination Committee for the Presbytery in which I minister--which means, among other things, that I help examine candidates who sense a call to the ministry. Over the last couple of years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of candidates taking an “exception” to the Westminster Standards’ interpretation of the Second Commandment, mainly due to the interpretation of the use of “images” in worship.   A good place to start when considering this issue is to look at what the Second Commandment actually says? In Exodus 20, we read,     The Westminster Divines interpreted this by affirming, “The second commandment forbiddeth the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 51). The Westminster Larger Catechism similarly teaches:     I am finding that an increasing number of pastors and candidates for gospel ministry are rejecting Westminster’s interpretation. Across my denomination—the Presbyterian Church in America (which holds to the Westminster Standards as part of its Constitution)—such a rejection is generally considered a “acceptable exception” (i.e. either it is considered a "semantic difference" with the wording of the Standards or "a difference that is more than semantic but that is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine” - RAO 16-3). In other words, most presbyteries allow a candidate for ministry to disagree with Westminster on this issue because (they believe) it does not strike at the “fundamentals” of our faith.   Westminster's Rationale   Notwithstanding, I want to give you a brief rationale in favor of the Second Commandment as interpreted by the Westminster Divines—why they argued the way they did.1   By creating an image of Jesus (e.g., in a painting or a stained-glass window), a person is inserting his or her own ideas of what Jesus looked like. Because we do not know what he looked like, this image would not be a true image or representation of Christ. Rather, it would simply be an image of a man from the imagination of the artist that he or she has called “Jesus.”   If these images, then, do not truly represent Christ, then they are put in the place of the true Christ. Evoking any sense of worship of that which is not Christ, but rather inserted in the place of Christ, is--by definition--idolatry. If an observer were to gaze upon that image with the intent to worship, by thoughts or emotions, then that observer would be worshipping a man-made image and not the true God-man, Jesus Christ. The same principle would also apply for images of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.   The Westminster Standards not only identify the physical creation of an image of God (or one of the persons of the Trinity), they also target the thought behind it as a violation of the Second Commandment. Whether the thought is expressed on paper or stays in the mind, the same principle applies: inserting an “invented” Christ in the place of the true revealed Christ in Scripture is idolatry.   In opposition to this, Westminster puts the emphasis on Scripture, God’s self-revelation, and not man-made images of God. Why? Because the Bible is sufficient for directing us on how and by what means we are to worship God. They would argue that we do not need to add to or help the Scriptures along by fashioning an idea of Christ and then calling it “Christ.”   Moreover, God has already given us one visual means by which we both remember and participate in the body and blood of our Lord Jesus. Scripture calls this the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). We are left to ask ourselves the question, "Do I believe that God’s Word and sacraments are sufficient means of salvation and sanctification for His elect?" The answer we give to this question will reveal how we approach the issue of images of Jesus.   If you haven’t thought through this issue before, I want to encourage you to consider studying it. It shouldn’t scare us to think through the wisdom of our Confessional heritage. Rather, it should--at the very least--cause us to ponder the rationale and explanation for Westminster's interpretation of the second commandment. Wherever you land on this issue, this much we can agree upon: We should all strive to understand the Second Commandment more faithfully, to reaffirm the sufficiency of Scripture in all of life, to avail ourselves to the ordinary means of grace and to strive for undivided worship.

      in Creeds and Confessions

    • The fifth commandment

      I am uneasy about posting this, as I know that a lot of Christians hold the ten commandments in very high regard, but here goes …   For many years now I have had trouble with the fifth commandment (Ex 20:12).  It is often interpreted as saying that children should obey their parents, but this cannot be the meaning.  The commandment is age-neutral, and so applying it merely to children does not make sense.  Also, does honour really mean obey?  Why does it not just say obey?   For some time now, I have held that the commandment is an all-age commandment to not act in such a way as to make your parents feel ashamed, which is not the same as obeying them.  Anyway, one day I noticed something which should have been obvious all along.   The commandment offers the remuneration - if that is the right word - of living a long time in the land that God is giving to … presumably the Israelites.  I therefore interpret this commandment as applying to the Israelites only, and not applying to Christians.   I suspect that a lot of people will disagree with me, but let me point out that I am not suggesting that none of the ten commandments have any validity today - merely the fifth.

      in Old Testament

    • 4 Films About the Eighth Commandment

      Movies have always found drama in thievery. From early silent films like The Great Train Robbery (1903), 1960s classics like The Italian Job (1969) and Bonnie and Clyde (1967), to last year’s Logan Lucky and Baby Driver, the heist has been a reliably crowd-pleasing genre. Audiences clearly find pleasure in watching colorful bands of criminals elaborately break the Bible’s eighth commandment: “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15). But why? Is it because we thrill at watching renegade outlaws triumph over “the man” (whether represented by a bank or greedy politician or corrupt casino owner) in a sort of twisted expression of justice? Perhaps the thrill of watching brazen acts of thievery distracts us from the ways we are all subtly breaking the eighth commandment—if not as outright thieves than as greedy hoarders and ungenerous stooges. After all, as Kevin DeYoung writes in his new book on The Ten Commandments, the eighth commandment “enjoins us not only to refrain from taking things but to have a spirit of generosity, so that we love to give things and help those in need.” Whatever the reasons, Hollywood keeps churning out films that mine drama from the transgression of “you shall not steal.” Four of the most acclaimed 2018 films, for example, take thievery as inspiration: American Animals, The Old Man and the Gun, Widows, and Shoplifters. Each approaches the topic from a different angle; each evaluates the morality of its thief characters in a distinct way. By briefly considering these four films in light of the eighth commandment, we observe interesting dynamics not only about the nature of theft, but also the nature of our society. American Animals American Animals is the only one that unequivocally disapproves of the actions of its thief protagonists (which is not to say it doesn’t try to understand them). The film, directed by British documentary filmmaker Bart Layton (The Imposter), is part documentary, part live-action drama. It tells the wild true story of four college-aged men in Kentucky who, in 2004, attempted to execute an outlandish heist from a rare-books library at Transylvania University. The film goes back and forth between actors (Evan Peters, Barry Keoghan, Jared Abrahamson, and Blake Jenner) dramatizing the heist, and the real perpetrators reflecting to the camera about how they did it, and why. And why is a fascinating question. These were suburban, middle-class boys with no need for what they were attempting to steal. The value of what they sought to steal was beside the point. By the end of the film it becomes clear their motives were largely driven by boredom, wanting to transcend the humdrum of their lives by doing something—something Oceans 11-esque!—that would make their lives noteworthy. Life imitating art is a real dynamic for these boys, as it is for the film itself (which opts for actors and thrilling heist tropes rather than a straightforward documentary). The “heist cool” of movie mythology drives these boys, as does—the film suggests in its title—a more primal masculine need for danger and risk. For the boys of American Animals, the safe domesticity of suburban life is stifling. Even if their movie-like heist resulted in prison (as it did), it would be worth it, they assumed. They did something. They’re famous. Hollywood actors are playing them in an acclaimed movie. Like the affluent thieves of Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring (2013), the privileged boys of American Animals are greedy not for possessions so much as celebrity and thrill. This type of privileged greed makes these boys an easier target than other, more utilitarian types of thieves (see Shoplifters and Widows below), but it’s a type of greed we can see in ourselves. In this world of spotlight-grabbing, platform-building, “like my photo!” online busking, the siren song of celebrity can be a potent motivator for all manner of transgression. The Old Man and the Gun Like American Animals, David Lowery’s The Old Man and the Gun is based on a true story. Robert Redford (in what’s touted as his final film performance) plays Forrest Tucker, a career criminal who robbed countless banks—and escaped prison countless times—over seven decades. Also like American Animals, Lowery’s film offers a meta reflection on the glamorization of thievery in pop culture. The casting of Redford, whose screen career includes several iconic thief/outlaw performances (e.g., Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting), underscores this point. Fittingly for Redford, his final starring role is that of a genteel, ever-so-cool thief whose hat tip and smiley wink warms the hearts of audiences as much as it does the bank managers he holds up at gunpoint. The Old Man and the Gun is largely ambivalent about the morality of theft, which functions in the film mostly as a fun genre motif. Similar to American Animals, theft is committed mostly for the pleasure and fame (or infamy) it brings. Tonally, the film is lighthearted and fun; more poetic than pulpy. It’s a cops-and-robbers story (Casey Affleck plays the cop) in which the cop and robber have mutual affection; so joyful are they about pursuing and evading each other that neither wants the drama to end. The movie is less a morality tale than an homage to cinema itself. With its grainy film stock and vintage sepia palette, the film’s 1970s aesthetic reinforces its reflexive nostalgia. As a love letter to Redford and the heist genre, Old Man is certainly delightful. But the film is problematic in how casually it treats the (serious) criminality of its hero. Portrayed mostly as an upstanding business man (whose business happens to be bank robbery), Redford’s character is only critiqued by the film in a brief scene where we meet a daughter (Elisabeth Moss) he never knew. Here the film hints at the tragic collateral damage and relational fallout of individual sin. Theft (like any sin) is never only consequential for the thief. Sin is less like a bullet and more like a bomb. There are victims all around, countless lives affected by it—a reality largely unacknowledged and unseen in this film. Widows The collateral damage of breaking the eighth commandment is powerfully seen in Widows, a visceral and violent (rated R) new film from Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave). Set in contemporary Chicago, Widows has a twist-heavy plot that follows three women (Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, and Elizabeth Debicki) who are widowed after their thief husbands die in a heist gone bad. Their deaths leave the women shackled with massive debts to deadly mobsters. In a sad perversion of the biblical emphasis on caring for widows in their vulnerable state (e.g. James 1:27), in this film the widows are forced to look out for themselves. In order to come up with the money to pay the debt (and threatened if they go to the police), they decide their only option is to carry out their own heist, based on plans their husbands left behind. Sin begets sin; thievery begets thievery. That’s one theme of Widows, a film about systemic and cyclical sin. As much about class, race, politics, and privilege as it is about heists, Widows presents a fallen world where thievery is just part of life; everyone is stealing or having something stolen. It’s a dog-eat-dog world, and survival means being the last one with the power or the money. Seething with rage from our #MeToo moment (each of the women is abused or exploited by men at some point in the film), #BlackLivesMatter, and driven by the logic of intersectionality, the film presents the band of widows as heroines—their heist justified by the personal and systemic oppression that has left them vulnerable. The money they steal is dirty money, to be sure, and the person they steal it from had stolen it from others himself. But does that justify the women stealing it too? Doesn’t the money belong to somebody who actually earned it? Widows presents a depressing world where almost no one keeps the eighth commandment. It’s a dog-eat-dog world where greed and self-interest dominate; where the powerful feel entitled to take whatever they want, whether money or land or sexualized bodies. All the victimized can do—the film suggests in brazenly Marxist terms—is fight fire with fire, stealing back what has been stolen from them. Shoplifters Perhaps the most critically beloved film of these four, Shoplifters (directed by acclaimed Japanese filmmaker Hirokazu Kore-eda) tells the story of a nontraditional family of six in contemporary Japan. They are nontraditional in various ways revealed as the film progresses, but chiefly because they are all thieves. Throughout the film we see members of the family steal everything from shampoo and fishing poles to Pachinko balls for slot machines. The thievery of the family also extends to people. Early in the film they kidnap a young girl whom they soon enlist in their family’s shoplifting schemes. Kore-eda is less interested in judging this family for their thievery (among other sins) than he is in examining their humanity and empathizing with their working-class plight. His camera tenderly captures them watching fireworks, playing at the beach, slurping noodles together, delighting in one another amidst difficult circumstances. Their shoplifting ways are presented as just one among many quotidian realities of their existence. Impoverished and living together in cramped, squalid quarters, many in the family have blue-collar jobs, but apparently they don’t pay enough to make ends meet. To be sure, Kore-eda does not excuse their criminal choices. The family’s moral justifications for their theft (“Whatever’s in a store doesn’t belong to anyone yet.” . . . “As long as the store doesn’t go bankrupt.”) are not convincing, and it takes a child in the family—Shota (Jyo Kairi), forced into shoplifting from a young age—to raise conscience concerns. “Don’t these belong to someone?” he asks his dad (Lily Franky) as he is about to break a car window to steal something inside. By the end of Shoplifters—which won the top prize at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival—the family of thieves do face justice for their sinful actions. But the film remains mostly sympathetic to them, faulting the system that produced them as much as their own individual bad choices. In this way Shoplifters, like the other three films to various degrees, reflects the zeitgeist—where personal culpability for sin is far less discussed than systemic culpability. Thievery’s Opposite Whatever the situational motivations that give rise to it—boredom, glory, debts, poverty—to steal is ultimately to take what doesn’t belong to you. It’s an individual choice to take a shortcut: to get instantly what might be earned through slower-yet-honest work. “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor,” Paul writes in Ephesians 4:28, “doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” The flipside of thievery is generosity. The former is a self-centered act with little concern for those hurt along the way. The latter is a selfless act, giving away what has been rightfully earned. In contrast to the dark, dog-eat-dog kingdoms of earth illustrated in these four films, the kingdom of God is one of radical generosity, driven by the conviction that “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15) and that the tangible-but-fragile treasures of this world pale in comparison to treasures in heaven, “where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matt 6:20). View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Georgia Teacher Donates His Kidney to His Sixth Grade Student

      Sixth-grader Kaden Koebcke received a gift from his Technology teacher that can save his life on Tuesday; a kidney. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Sixth Female Airman Attempts TACP Training, Air Force Says

      A sixth woman has begun the Air Force's battlefield airman training program, according to Air Education and Training Command.   More...

      in Military

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.