Over at Faith Impoverished, Tim Gombis has a excellent post on christian non-violence entitled "The Logic of Religious Violence." On this matter, my own view has been changing over the past year or so. I have found that so often I acquiesce to an American driven theology of life, instead of one driven by cruciformity (conformity to the crucified Christ). Check out Gombis' post (here) and let me know your thoughts.
In studying the connection between "union with Christ" and "ethics" in Paul's writings, I came across an excellent little article (if quite dated now) by Morna Hooker called "Interchange in Christ and Ethics." Below are her concluding paragraphs--which, I might add, I have found to be troubling (in that they're convicting) over the last couple of days.
"Christians are no more likely than anyone else to find the solution to problems of inflation and unemployment, injustice and famine. What they can do is to show the relevance of the Christian gospel to all these problems. When the world is divided between rich and poor, prosperous and starving, those with jobs and those without, strong and weak, where should Christians be found? Looking for something good to happen to them, spiritually, physically and financially--or concerned about the welfare of others? Maintaining the rights of the strong, or standing up for the weak? Enjoying the success that has come to them through their own efforts or through good fortune--or identifying with those who have no hope of ever experiencing anything good?
"Such questions leave us all uneasy. No doubt we think that their implications are impractical. But they remind us that Paul's ethical teaching is as much concerned with 'lifestyle' as with answers to particular moral questions. And the 'lifestyle' is that of one who emptied himself, became poor, and identified himself with sinful mankind. That is the pattern of living to which Paul points Christians. Who will dare to say that his teaching is not relevant to our contemporary problems."