--John of Salisbury, Policratus 3.15 (ca.1154)
Is this a Christian attitude?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
That it is only permitted to flatter him whom it is permitted to slay
"It is not permitted to flatter a friend, but it is permitted to delight the ears of a tyrant. For in fact him whom it is permitted to flatter, it is permitted to slay. Furthermore, it is not only permitted, but it is also equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword. . . . He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. . . . Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but, if this can happen, it is more than public. . . . Surely no one will avenge a public enemy, and whoever does not prosecute him transgresses against himself and against the whole body of the earthly republic."
--John of Salisbury, Policratus 3.15 (ca.1154)
--John of Salisbury, Policratus 3.15 (ca.1154)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess Boenhoffer would say 'Yes'.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is not quite as clear. I believe that Christianity is consistent in valuing life.
From this value it follows that people should value their own lives and those of others. From this follows that people ought not tyrannize each other, so the tyrant is in the wrong. Now, the question of whether or not a tyrant can be justifiably slayed is difficult. A Christian has to balance Jesus' call to turn the other cheek with this whole idea of valuing life. If the tyrant tyrannizes 'others', then most Christians (but not John of Salisbury) probably would oppose slaying of a tyrant. (Jesus reprimands Peter for cutting off the ear of the tyrannizing soldier).
If a tyrant tyrannizes Christians' own family members, and attempts to take their lives in the extreme, then probably more Christians would say that slaying of the tyrant is a proper response to the uninvited use of force.
My own view is that the tyrant should not tyrannize and force can justifiably be used to stop the tyrant from doing so. The extent of that responsive force allowable or required is probably situation-specific.
What do you think?
I knew you would ask me that! This means I have to come up with an answer, doesn't it? Hmmmmm.... Maybe tomorrow.
ReplyDelete