So I was watching Bill OReilly tonight because truth be told I never have found local news compelling or relevant to my life.
Anyways, he defined Christians with the two terms in the title. Here were his definitions.
Militant Christians feel the need to impress their beliefs on others.
Mainline Christians believe but feel no need to impress their beliefs upon others.
See http://www.foxnews.com/talkingpoints/index.html for his comments tomorrow(1/26).
So two questions. First, are these real categories? Can one be a Christian without a desire to share their beliefs with others? And if that is the mainline attitude of those called Christians, what is the state of the faith in America?
And secondly, am I militant? The term seems so harsh. It seems so radical. But then again, the theologians of the church have always called the church on earth the Church Militant.
Am I at war? Maybe in the way that I am at war as an American. But am I at war like the soldiers sitting in Iraq? Do I daily engage the enemy or just sort of in general acknowledge that there is a war?
The problem I guess is that truth be told all Christians are daily being engaged by the enemy. We are like the soldiers in Iraq. But we are living as if war with Satan is a reality we don’t often encounter directly. That is a good way to get killed.
But back to the main point. If being militant in our day means to feel a need to share truth, get me a weapon. No wait, I have one already, the Word. Let me take it up.
I think part of the problem for me is that what the word, militant, not only has come to mean but how it has come to be expressed. In my understanding of Scripture…no doubt we are engaged in battle but it is not against flesh and blood but against powers of darkness, etc.
So i guess, for me, it is to whom do i have a militant attitude? And if my militant attitude is expressed against people (at least on some level), who are wary of the whole war, military thing anyway, then am i having the same attitude of Christ toward people?
It seems to be a hard line to walk. Be at war with the powers that be, but yet be in a loving, compassionate mode that extends the love, grace and forgiveness (which aren’t war type words) found in Jesus to God’s highly treasured possessions.
I’m not sure if sharing the truth found in Jesus necessitates being militant because: we are not at war with people – does militant really reflect what we are about to God’s creation?
I think one can be a passionate follower of Jesus who creatively and geniunely shares the truth found in Jesus to those around him/her and yet not be perceived and not be militant.
I would love to hear your thoughts some more. Sorry this was so long.
Tom, your thoughts are well written and I agree with them. I think that was my real discomfort with the phrase all along. By his definition, I was militant, and yet I didn’t want to embrace it because militant is viewed as you rightly characterized as “waring with people.”
And I think it comes down to this: Most people who in my mind are militant in the bad way share only the law of God. They fight for the ten commandments. They protest against things which are sinful. They speak of other’s sin.
But as you have rightly said, to be rightly militant is to ultimately share the gospel. It is only that message which slays the evil one. That is not to say that the sharing of the law is not proper, but it is to say it is only proper when the goal is to bring one to repentance in order to present to them the gospel.
When one wields the word properly, Jesus is the power.
If Christians are militant in wanting to share the knowledge of Christ on others, than we could also say that Jonas Salk was militant in revealing his Polio vaccine.
We’re not talking about conquering people and controlling them against their will. We’re not talking about persuasion by violence.
We have the amazing opportunity to bring truth and healing and life to people who are in desperate need. There’s nothing militant about that.
Is it possible to be a militant Christian? Of course… I have talked to people who I’d classify as such, and there have been some dark moments in Christian history where Christians have earned that term. But those aren’t the people that O’Reilly is labelling.
Right, the world clamors for caged Christianity which can be called out to preform when needed. But that is not the nature of the beast.