On Testing Ethics

So I've been thinking a lot about Joel's question. I've wanted to write about it for quite sometime, but between a baby, catching up on school work, and the numerous different house guests that we've entertained lately, I just haven't had the time to type out my thoughts. Now the task seems so daunting that I'm afraid to start. When I re-started the blog I said that I wanted to seek out other writers and so I think I'm going to do that. Still, I don't want to completely blow off the topic at hand. Bethany, Melissa, Kat, Laura Kate, Gina, and I had a interesting discussion about the role of Christians in culture (specifically the state) that seemed to begin to help flesh why Christian pacifism still works, but I wonder if the test of an ethic should even be situational. I have a coworker who said he doesn't believe the Bible because the ethical propositions of the ten commandments "don't work in real life" and I've got former professors who somehow think that love should be this flexible ethic in which right and wrong should flow forth from the situation. Granted the situations presented here are far more "real life" than anything my coworker or professors stated, but they present the same dilemma. The test of an ethic should be Scripture. The test of an ethic should be kingdom. I think that, properly examined, Scripture tends toward pacifism (which is altogether different from passivity). It tends toward peace-making. It tends toward the putting away of swords. Our weaponry is spiritual as is our enemy. As we actively pursue peace, we fight that spiritual battle and live out the end goal of "Thy Kingdom come."

Perhaps when I have more time I will delve into the spheres of government and the battling civilizations and Christ in culture, which would further my arguments for pacifism, but right now I have reading to do.

Sorry if this seems like a cop out.