Admittedly, the comment section is going to run ahead of me. That’s natural. When you arrive at a blog discussing a certain topic, you express your views on that subject, not necessarily limiting yourself to what’s been presented. That’s helpful to me, but I won’t always engage in discussing the various points brought up.
I will remind us that this isn’t a simple topic. It’s not one that you can say: “Here’s the verse that settles it.” For every proof text, there’s an opposing text. Every invented scenario can be met with its equal on the other side. Because of that, I think we need to be extremely charitable toward one another.
One other introductory comment: I see the topic of Christians participating in the wars of this world and the topic of Christians using force in other settings to be related topics, but not necessarily the same topic. When I speak of pacifism, I’m speaking of the first, though I hope to eventually address both.
Is there room for difference of opinion on this matter? Some in their comments have said no. I’m not there. I compared it yesterday to some of Paul’s comments to the Corinthians, and that didn’t seem to sit well with some.
Let me try another example. Let’s take the concept of material goods. Some teach voluntary poverty as the most godly way. Others believe that God blesses his children with riches. Some believe that having more than we can use is sinful; others believe that only through increasing prosperity can we truly bless those around us.
I think there’s room for disagreement on that. I also think that I can point to several attitudes toward riches and material possessions that are sinful. And I can point out sinful, judgmental attitudes among Christians as they talk about other Christians. And I think that study of Scripture can point us to the best way of looking at earthly wealth.
I know, it’s not exactly the same. But I think that I can point to Christ’s way of living, the best and most godly way, yet still love those who can’t live up to that standard or who understand it differently.
Am I wrong?
Over the years, our tradition has shown that it is easier to divide than to discuss, debate and grow in unity. In all debated issues in Christendom there are good points to be made on both sides or more sides. I find it easier to make my good points than to learn from the good points of others. I guess that is part of what makes spiritual growth so difficult. Change is painful, even if it is only changing my mind.
I really think you’re onto something, Tim, when you compare the pacifism situation to 1 Cor 8. I’m not sure it is valuable to start with such a broad term (‘pacifism’), but try and make it only refer to nationalistic concerns. Especially when you’re conducting an internet discussion, the conversation is going to be difficult to limit when you’re introducing it with such a broad term.
But back to 1 Cor 8-10: Christians in cultures where nationalism is a powerful and accepted idol will definitely have trouble understanding that such an idol is actually NOTHING, and is in fact driven (or at least strongly influenced by) evil spiritual powers. The temptation / challenge of partnering with evil to do good (temptation b/c it is easier than separation; challenge b/c it is what God did when He chose to partner with “you who are evil” to manifest and drive forward His redemptive mission) calls for much wisdom and spiritual discernment.
And we definitely need more voices calling for grace on both sides of the dilemma. Those of us stuck in no-man’s-land would certainly appreciate it! :)
What makes this such a volatile topic? Since we are currently involved militarily on no less than three fronts, it is obvious why it is a topic. It has also been a topic of debate in the past, and always it has been a volatile topic.
From the lack of texts that speak directly to pacifism, it seems that we could draw the conclusion that if it wasn’t a non-issue for them, at least it was far less important than eating meat offered to idols and a multitude of other problems with integrating new members.
Does our living in a “Christian Nation” cloud our understanding of our citizenship in the New Jerusalem?
Do we confuse our nation with the Kingdom of God?
Does our abundance encourage us to use force to defend it?
Does our abundance encourage us to be soft and enjoy it?
Does our lack of cross cultural evangelism and fellowship limit our vision and encourage a we vs. they thinking?
I don’t know.
While on the mission field, I had the blessing (?) of living through a war. How do you counsel a young Argentine Christian on whether or not he should enlist to fight our allies, the British? Do you tell him that you know that one of the British lieutenants is an active member of a congregation in England and has requested prayers?
I do know that few things complicate mission work more than a war.
I had to open my word processor to produce this comment because your post required a lot of deep thinking and examination of myself, my faith, and my attitude. Not only in regard to pacifism, but in regard to all this in general.
Back in the 1970’s my faith came close to being totally destroyed. As I began to rebuild, I decided that it was necessary to take Paul’s advice, and build very carefully on the foundation God gave us. One stone at a time my faith has been rebuilt stronger than before. The main difference is that I occasionally find it necessary to remove and replace a stone. I do not believe that I will ever have to remove the stone of pacifism, but I have had to remove stones that regard how I react to those who oppose it and how it relates to the rest of my life in the kingdom of God.
That life in Christ is a whole building not one or even many stones. This is probably why comments often run ahead or seem to become scattered from the post itself.
Although I often mention book, chapter, and verse which I really believe we need, I am not sure that I really believe in what is sometimes called “proof texts”. They can be twisted as Peter notes. The word of God must be accepted as a whole context not as single verses used to prove a point. Context is a must in understanding what God requires. It includes many things: surrounding text, time, place, people, events, and application. There are probably others, but those are just a few that occur to me at the moment. Most of us accept the context of surrounding text but tend to ignore the others or fail to understand them. This is one of the reasons grace is necessary. I do not know how far God’s grace extends, but I must try not to walk outside it. All of this is why the Word requires continual study.
One thing that I am sure of, because Paul states it very plainly; faith, hope, and love still abide. I must build on faith in God and his word, in hope of eternal life, and in the love of God and my brethren whatever their views.
“Proof texts” even in total context should never be used to destroy faith, hope, or love. If they are, we have totally missed the mark and twisted the word of God. It is meant to build us up in Christ and give us peace.
May you be at peace always,
Wes
North American culture is no longer convinced that Jesus is the way, truth, and life because long ago the majority of the people who made that proclamation in words were too busy in deed living as though the state was the way, truth, and life. Little has changed and so it is little wonder why people no longer believe. How can they when those who claim to believe continue seeking the living from among the dead? And yet so many Christians will appease the state and subsequently strain the scriptures hermeneutically to justify their support of the state (including the support of state-sanctioned violence) to justify the support of the state. All the while, during the first three centuries of Christians, believers were tortured to death because they refused to grant Caesar his wish.
On this Easter Sunday may we not just believe Jesus was raised in words but that he was raised in victory, giving us the same victory so that we could live in a singular devotion (faith) to him rather than some dualistic faith that is foreign to the gospel.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
no, I think your right. The study of the scriptures can best point the way for each of us discern what is right and wrong, and we can test it also. But it would do good to take consideration of Peter’s feast as we study and pray. God does allow all kinds of people who eat all kinds of strange things be an active and holy part of his kingdom. And would be more than certain that that feast includes those who are poor, rich, ugly, good looking, uneducated, learned, undocumented, pedigreed, old earth and new earth theory people, preterits (i think that the word) and milliniamist (sp), soldiers and pacifist. The major thing that gets in the way is not letting of our own culture, or whatever you want to call it, and grasping the culture of Christ.
Pingback: THE CHRISTIAN AND PACIFISM « Committed To Truth