It’s interesting how angry some people can get when you start exploring pacifistic views. More than most topics, they seem to feel that their own views are being judged.
I was just reading through an exchange I had in an Internet discussion group with one of the popular writer/speakers in our brotherhood. He repeatedly said that he had “little use” for those who hold pacifistic views and that, while loving them, he could not respect them. He emphasized that not only did he not respect their opinion, he didn’t respect them. (Then every time he sees me he tells me how much he appreciates my work; I’m guessing he doesn’t even remember the exchange)
I don’t approach pacifism as a “holier than thou” issue. I’m not going to condemn those who choose to fight. I see it sort of like Paul in 1 Corinthians 7; he could point to what he thought was the best way to serve God, yet concede that not everyone could live it. Many godly men have chosen to fight out of a sense of service to God. I think they were mistaken, but I judge neither their motives nor their salvation. In fact, I don’t have a problem with respecting what they did… though I do have a problem with glorifying those actions.
Somehow, we’ve got to be able to talk about these issues without anger and without judgment. We need to be able to explore what the Bible says, beyond what our emotions say.
What do you think? Where does the emotion, especially the anger come from? Why is this topic so charged with feelings?
Tim,
We studied in a military congregation the book, “Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up.” The author is a pacifist and argues for such in on section of the book. It is a study of 2nd to 4th century christian writings. I remain unconvinced of this idea of pacifism. In discussing soldiers, he concludes that early Christian men where allowed to stay in the Roman army but new Christian were not allowed to join. The reason they were allowed to stay was that they would be killed for leaving. I would say, so what. If something is a sin and stopping it would cause death then wouldn’t a Christian still be required to stop it?
You have huge problems with the complete pacifist view because we know that early Christian men were soldiers. We also have men being sent to war by God in the Old Testament. It is for that reason that I subscribe to the “just war” view.
The idea of turning the other check isn’t the same as saying you can never defend yourself. Nor does it contend that a nation cannot go to war. For the nation by scripture is allowed to bear the sword.
I think the comment of a woman defending herself being raped wasn’t answered in a satisfactory way. Because if you argue that pacifism is God’s law then it is morally superior. If you are saying it is your chosen way of living then I can see your point. So where are you going? What is your direction? Is pacifism a good idea, God’s law, or is it your personal choice?
whenever you mess with someone’s idols, they get hot. and USA is one of the biggest, most powerful and loved idols for american Christians right now, in my worthless opinion
Tim,
We’ve been inculcated that violence used in certain ways is good, glorious, heroic, admirable, etc. These are deeply intertwined with certain cultural and political identities. The suggestion of pacifism challenges not just what we believe, but the depths of who some of us are–loyalties and principles.
Do you really think non-violence is just an issue like eating meat sacrificed to idols? i guess i didn’t really understand precisely what you were after in saying that some people can do it and some can’t and that’s okay either way.
–guy
Tim, when you write passages like…
…it is difficult to hear that as anything but a judgment. The second sentence, in fact, is a de facto admission that it is, in fact, a judgment.
The passion and vehemence on this topic stem from the fact that you’re talking about LIFE. You’re talking about people’s family. You’re asking a Christian to imagine allowing their (perhaps non-Christian) child to be murdered, but not to have strong feelings about it? That’s pretty unrealistic.
Yoder’s problem, in “What Would You Do,” is that it doesn’t sound like he counts the cost. He only collects the stories where pacifism “saved the day.” It doesn’t sound like there’s a chapter full of martyrs.
On this issue, like most, I don’t find the witness of Jesus to be as clear and obvious as these posts make him sound. He’s just more problematic that he’s given credit for.
Nick,
My judgment was on what the brotherhood did when the government forced people to stop teaching what they believed was right. You just needed to quote one more sentence: “Even if we don’t agree, we should be willing to stand and defend a brother’s right to preach what he sees in Scripture.”
If the government forces the one cuppers to use multiple cups, I shouldn’t stand idly by, even if I don’t share their conviction.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Joe,
I’m convinced that pacifism is God’s way. I also think it’s a good idea and my personal choice.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I see your point, and it makes sense in context.
Guy’s question, though, is mine as well – esp. now that you’ve intentionally made a parallel between pacifism and one cup/multiple cups.
Perhaps that’s why you don’t understand the vehemence of the argument – most people on either side of it do not see it as something that can be paralleled with a tertiary issue. Where they stand on this issue is a bedrock part of their worldview, and worldviews change with tectonic force.
Guy,
I’m admittedly wrestling through this. Maybe I should point more to 1 Corinthians 8, the “not everyone has this knowledge” passage. Whatever the case, I feel the need for grace towards all involved in the discussion.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I’ve been doing some work on American Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr lately. Niebuhr was a pacifist early on, but shifted and became a primary advocate of the doctrine of Christian Realism. Niebuhr argues that the kingdom of heaven can not be realized on Earth because of the innately corrupt tendencies of society.
Tim Frakes,
What are some of Niebuhr’s early works espousing pacifism?
(i knew that Yoder had criticized Niebuhr for his non-pacifism, but i didn’t know Niebuhr had previous been a pacifist.)
–guy
Nick,
Perhaps Yoder didn’t deal sufficiently with martyrdom–true. But i don’t think his collection of stories is meant to address the problem you raise. The point is that these stories counter the notion of “that’ll never work” or “you just plain can’t deal with evil that way.” Perhaps Yoder doesn’t give enough attention to cases where non-violence doesn’t seem to work. But the stories do, in fact, counter those particular charges. i didn’t take him to claiming anything more for them than that.
And about counting the cost: God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Okay, so it’s beyond understandable that Abraham would have very strong feelings averse to obedience in that case. Jesus, Luke records, demands that we “hate” everyone close to us in comparison to Him. Obviously when loyalties conflict, it’ll feel very emotionally loaded. Granted. But all that doesn’t change that obedience to Christ even among conflicting loyalties is always the right thing to do.
–guy
In “Moral Man and Immoral Society” Niebuhr does not campaign for bearing arms, but he observes that every society has its injustices that are sustained by the privileged classes. The proletariat classes have the option of living with it or revolution. He hopes for political solutions and for reason to prevail.
Yes, Guy, but equating pacifism with “obedience to Christ” sort of begs the question, doesn’t it?
My point isn’t that Yoder’s pacifism is right or wrong, but that he presents it as if nonviolent alternatives always work out “in successful ways.” Any child can say, “Nuh-uh!” Yoder chooses not to address the best argument of his opponents, in favor of addressing the ridiculous assertion that pacifism never works – to which he says, in effect, “Nuh-uh! Look here!”
Anytime we become so defensive of our own views that we must deride those with different views, it says more about us than it does about the legitimacy of a particular view…and it certainly not flattering speech.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
If it is not sinful why oppose it at all? Sin is sin. Killing is killing. Lying is lying. If there are degrees of killing, there are degrees of lying and every other sin in the Bible. I firmly believe that the teaching of Jesus on the subject of killing and violence required those who were soldiers or government officials for that matter to leave their post as Matthew did. If we are required to repent and be converted (Acts 3:19), why not in this matter also?
Please be aware that this is neither judgement or anger. I am simply preaching the word as Paul commanded (2 Timothy 4:2-5).
May you always be at peace,
Wes
Why is it, then, that both sides get all worked up about the unflattering rhetoric of the other side, while tacitly agreeing with the inflammatory speech of their allies?
“Bloodthirsty babykiller” rhetoric gets thrown around just as much as “coward” rhetoric.
If it is a sin to kill, Ananias and Saphira must be terribly confused.
Nick,
There are some things which are reserved for God. For example, judging is sinful precisely because there is only one Lawgiver and Judge. One can argue that the taking of life is something that God can do without sin yet man can’t. Not wanting to get ahead in the reasoning process, just pointing out that God’s killing of Ananias and Saphira doesn’t mean that killing is not sinful.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Nick,
You wrote:
“My point isn’t that Yoder’s pacifism is right or wrong, but that he presents it as if nonviolent alternatives always work out “in successful ways.”
i didn’t read Yoder that way at all.
In my experience, “pacifism never works” is not taken to be a ridiculous assertion, but the very immediate and knee jerk response of people in every Bible class i’ve ever been in where the topic has come up.
–guy
Ananias and Saphira should not be confused because God rendered the judgement and carried out the punishment. God has the right to do as he pleases because he is God (Romans 9:10-24). It would have been sin for Peter to carry out the punishment which is why God executed the judgement himself.
If God chooses to destroy every sinner in the world, which he will one day do, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with human beings making themselves judge, jury, and executioner of other human beings.
May you always be at peace,
Wes
Tim,
I agree – but that goes right in hand with my discussion of meekness and non-retaliation on the other post. For it isn’t killing that God limits to himself (unless Exodus 20:13 really does contradict the capital punishment passages of Torah), but revenge. “Vengeance is mine, I shall repay” is the reason given when retaliation is proscribed.
Guy,
When I say ridiculous, I don’t mean incredible, I mean ridiculous. I mean that it is so obviously and easily refuted that it is a position worthy of ridicule, and not worth being treated like a serious argument.
Nick,
It behooves Yoder (and any pacifist i suppose) to take the notion seriously when so many of his opponents or readers might have that notion right on the tip of their tongue. So i don’t see how it’s a wasted or inefficient section of the book.
–guy
Wes (and Tim),
If Sin is Sin, then God isn’t allowed to do it either.
If killing is inherently sinful, then God can’t do it – any more than He can lie.
Since Scripture makes it very clear that God cannot lie, but can kill, the two cannot be paralleled effectively.
The question in my mind, then, is does Scripture teach that God has or has not in any sense delegated his authority to kill?
Guy, my point is that the entire section could be done with a one page photo spread of the Cross, Gandhi, and MLK Jr.
I’m not trying to attack Yoder. I just don’t think he presents the cost of pacifism (or nonviolence, or nonretaliation) as graphically and accurately as the Gospels do. He spends a lot of pages with happy stories of success, and not very many on the multitudes whose experience hasn’t been so pleasant.
Nick,
I must confess that I do not know exactly why God allowed, yes, even commanded it under the Law of Moses. There are a couple of things that I suspect might have been the reason, but you will never hear me say so unless I discover book, chapter and verse that says what I suspect is true.
I do know that God did not intend the Old Law to last forever. He says multiple times in the Old Testament that he would send a new lawgiver with a new law. Unlike some, who claim that the God of the Old Testament could not be the same God because the Old and New are so different, I know that God is the same God, creator of heaven and earth because both tell me he is. The fact that I can not explain why God commanded capital punishment under the Old Law and limits it to earthly governments in which Christians have no part in the New Testament does not make God wrong in refusing to let Christians take part in it. It simply means that my understanding is limited.
May you be at peace always,
Wes
I appreciate where you’re coming from, Wes. I especially appreciate your humility towards the Word, and I confess that my understanding of these matters is limited as well. As Tim knows, I’m no hawk – but I can’t find a comfortable position among the doves either. I’m torn by questions like, “Why should I let my neighbor commit murder?” and “Which neighbor do I love more? The one whose violence I don’t stop, or the one who is killed by that violence?”
Will no one bring up Dietrich Bonhoeffer … ?
For me, he exemplifies the problematic nature of the issue, especially when I catch myself talking about logical principles and categories and hypotheticals rather than reality.
Tim,
You ignored al the other issues. I assume you may get to them later. I also think again you didn’t fairly answer the question of the rapist on the previous post.
If a woman defends herself from a rapist is she immoral? If pacifism is Christ’s will then the woman who allows herself to be rapped is morally superior to the one who kills her rapist.
Surely you are aware that there are ways for a woman to defend herself against a rapist without killing him. If she kills him, she lowers herself to his level. This idea of standing over him with a smoking gun is exactly why I do not believe a Christian needs a gun unless it is necessary to provide his family with food. If you have a gun, you may be tempted to use it.
In regard to stopping one neighbor from killing another, the answer is pretty much the same, which is why I pretty much encourage everyone I know to give up gun ownership, though I see no sense in making a law to that effect since that puts me into the political realm from which I abstain.
Preventing things such as this is why God allows civil government, which he told Samuel is a rejection of him as king, to exist. It is why I pay taxes that I may not become involved in vengence taken by that government (Romans 13).
May you always be at peace,
Wes
Nick,
You wrote:
“Guy, my point is that the entire section could be done with a one page photo spread of the Cross, Gandhi, and MLK Jr.”
Actually these examples don’t make his point. These are large scale, systematic implementations of non-violence, whereas i take it his book is meant specifically to deal with the one-time, immediate danger type situation. That’s the situation he was dealing with in the entire first section of the book anyway. He needed examples of that ilk.
–guy
Tim, I think the comments reveal the reason that believers don’t discuss pacifism much. The discussion just unravels into a hundred other issues.
Joe,
You’re confusing pacifism and non-violence/non-resistance. They aren’t exactly the same.
Help me with this. Is the martyr who allows himself to be killed morally superior to the one who kills his attackers in self-defense? If so, does the attacker have to specifically say that he is killing you for your faith?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
If nothing else, we’ve confirmed that there is much passion on this topic.
A tangential question might be: why does this topic so often come to a battle of contrived scenarios?
Nick,
What we have to see is that there are things that God can do without sinning that man can’t do without sinning.
Now I will argue that killing is not inherently sinful. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your logic in the previous post.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I started to refrain from getting involved here, but the evident lack of experience on the subject discussed here, stands out like a sore thumb. And it is an important thing for solders and ex-military to know.
This conversation seems to be based on a misconceived notion that “Thou shalt not kill” is a greater command than all others.
Yes to take another’s life is a sin, and just like any other sin it can be the downfall of a Christian, but not necessarily so. I don’t know how many “Christians” during the war, or those who become one after their return, would say they do not regret, and have not ask forgiveness for that sin, along with all the others they commit every day, how many of you who comment on this subject, stand sinless before God?
There are a lot of ” Thou shalt not” in exodus 20, but there is only one, that will not be forgiven.
Exd 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Yeah, I know most if not all who comment here believe that, The Lord God, and the Holy Ghost are two different but equal persons, but these passages say they are not.
Exodus 20:7 says the Lord God has one name, not three.
Yes there are certain times the death penalty is called for, according to scripture. And it says nothing about the penalty being enforced only by God.
Exd 22:18 ¶ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Exd 22:19 ¶ Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
I am not any where near qualify to engage in this conversation. But try I might – just to engage. Your words “Many godly men have chosen to fight out of a sense of service to God.” struck a chord. Prior to the Civil War there was great debate between the North and South – and that debate was not left aside at the church doors. Preaching was vehement on both sides. Those who read their bibles daily volunteered in masse to their respective armies when war was declared. And brothers, who were bought by the blood of Christ, took to their weapons and slaughter one another. There is a lesson to learn here. I wish there was a prophet to shove it down our hard hearts to so we can learn it. If pacifist is not taking to arms and fighting for ones country (Remember the saying “My Country Right or Wrong”) Then I fall in this category. We have been bought by the blood of Christ – the world will know us by our love, our charity, our hospitality, our purity, our righteousness. Yes, I do know many who have volunteered to the service of this nation and they are more of a man than I. But I cannot.
“If Sin is Sin, then God isn’t allowed to do it either.
If killing is inherently sinful, then God can’t do it – any more than He can lie.”
Nick,
Nick, can you please tell me what a “sin” is? and why God cannot lie.?
The only thing on earth that can possiably commit a sin is “Man”. At one time it was only Jewish Man.
Titus 1:1-3 (KJV – enjoy, Laymond)
As for sin, there are several Scriptural definitions, of which you’ve selected only one and narrowly interpreted its direct object in order to reach the conclusion that “only Jewish Man” could sin. A good friend of mine offers this definition, that I believe serves the discussion better.
Guy,
Regarding Reinhold Niebuhr and early views on pacifism see:
The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses
By Reinhold Niebuhr, Robert McAfee Brown
http://tinyurl.com/3zbft6o
Hi Laymond.
Above you asked what sin is. Please indulge me for a moment.
God can do whatever God WANTS to do. God only wants to do things consistent with His nature. His nature is absolutely pure, holy and sinless so the things He does are pure, holy and sinless.
Man does what man WANTS to do and man wants to do the things that are consistent with man’s nature. We, like the rest were children of wrath, but God intervened on our behalf according to Paul in his letter to the Ephesians. Even so, in Romans 7 Paul still talks about doing the very thing he would not do and then explains that it is not him that is doing it but SIN which indwells him.
Perhaps sin is more than simply missing the mark or engaging in a particular act of iniquity, at least as Paul uses the term in Romans 7. It seems to be a corruption of our very nature.
Thanks be to God who has regenerated us and leads us in His way.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall, I fully agree that sin includes more, much more than just missing the mark, maybe this covers unintended sins, but not all.
I agree with the Catholic Church on this, if not totally, mostly.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (C.C.C.) defines a sin as follows:
“Sin is an offense against reason, truth and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” (C.C.C. # 1849)
“Sin is an offense against God: ‘Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.’ Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become ‘like gods,’ knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus ‘love of oneself even to contempt of God.’ In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation. (C.C.C. # 1850)
Hi Laymond,
Above you concluded your comment with: “In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation. (C.C.C. # 1850)”
“obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation” – now that’s a concept that seems a little at odds with salvation by grace through faith. It sounds a bit like those of us that were obedient enough earned our salvation.
Perhaps I don’t understand. It wouldn’t be the first time I was confused. Then again, many today (in the CofC) don’t like the reformed concepts of by Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone and to God alone be the glory. Perhaps the CofC never did sign on to those concepts.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall, this is not my writings, if you notice I gave the credit to , The Catechism of the Catholic Church. but if you re-read the part you questioned, you will find it agrees with what you said. I believe it said (pride is the opposite of what Jesus did to garner our salvation) You might be reading “obedience of Jesus” as obedience to Jesus.
Which I believe both is required for salvation. That is why I said” if not fully, mostly”
Hi Laymond,
Yes, you caught my mistake as I did read obedience TO Jesus rather than obedience OF Jesus. It does make a big difference. While I readily acknowledge obedience to Jesus is a normal part of the Christian walk, I can’t see it as causing salvation. Our works could never cause us to be saved or merit salvation on our part. If so, someone would have to tell me which works and how many of them; and of course that can’t be done. A person couldn’t even say that we just have to try as hard as we can or be as faithful as we can b/c none of us ever do either of those things to the best of our ability.
Hesed,
Randall
Pingback: THE CHRISTIAN AND PACIFISM « Committed To Truth