Just to add some ‘dumbed-down’ thoughts to Andrew’s (spot on) eloquence…

I (and Yoder before me) read the Sermon on the Mount politically as requiring of the New Israel that it make nonviolence (viz. pacifism) its mode of operation.

Funny how the ‘plain meaning’ of "love your enemies" is so darn controversial.

The truth of the matter is that our ‘simple’ speech is just a popular retelling of what smart people said a long time ago. If the smart people a long time ago got parts of the story wrong (e.g. Luther on ‘works’, or Augustine on ‘free will’), then maybe parts of the popular story are wrong too. So if popular stories are summaries of smart-people stories (Andrew’s reference to Romans is very a propos), then shouldn’t smart people be critically rethinking their analysis of Scripture in light of the best research? Part of that is what’s going on here.

So fancy talk can be (though it isn’t necessarily, granted) relevant to commonfolk.

At least, that’s my take on the issue.

 Cheers,

 -Daniel-