Having done a quick survey of the Old Testament, we move to the New Testament. I’d like to say that things really come into focus, but we only have to read a bit among Christian writers to realize that isn’t so.
As best I can, let me present the passages used by the pro-involvement side (choosing my terms carefully). As I move farther away from this view, it’s harder for me to objectively present these arguments, so I encourage others to comment and help us keep balance.
- In Luke 3:14, when soldiers come to John the Baptist asking what they should do to show their repentance, John tells them to not extort and to be content with their wages. Not only are they not told to leave the military, they are not given any instructions about limiting their participation.
- Several soldiers are presented in a favorable light, such as the Roman centurion who showed great faith in Jesus (Matthew 8), Cornelius (Acts 10) and numerous Roman officers in the book of Acts.
- In Acts, when a group of Jews sought to kill Paul, Paul sought protection from the Roman military.
- Paul compared Christian life to military life. (passages like Ephesians 6:10ff and 2 Timothy 2:3-4)
- Jesus said that He had not come to bring peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
- Jesus told His followers that they would need swords in the future. (Luke 22:36)
- Though many think of Jesus as the Prince of Peace, He is also portrayed as one who will punish God’s enemies. (passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and Revelation 19)
- Jesus strikes down the nations with a sword in Revelation.
Are there other New Testament passages that should be presented when making a case for Christians participating in the military?
Edit [9:20 a.m., 5/11/11]: I left out the text of texts, the trump card of trump cards—Romans 13. Apologies. Christians must submit to the government which bears the sword and has been charged with punishing evildoers. That is a very important text.
Tim,
i think Romans 13 can also be used to say that violence is permissible *if* a Christian happens to be an agent of the state.
–guy
Oh my goodness gracious! Thanks Guy. I left out the mother of all anti-pacifism texts. That one merits an edit.
some indeed read rom 13 as the “trump card of trump cards.” how ? and in what way? why divorce rom 13 from its connection with the end of rom 12 especially vv. 14, 16a, 17-21. to quote richard hays marvelous work, The Moral Vision of the NT, “there is not a syllable in the pauline letters that can be cited in support of christians employing violence” (p. 331).
when we begin to look at the world through the eyes of community, the cross, and the new creation … there is precious little room for war or other fallen world habits.
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
If the Christian is to allow God to provide protection from violence for his family, should he also follow Matthew 6 and let God provide food and clothing too?
What is Paul counseling Timothy that Godly people should provide for their families?
Nick,
I thought about blogging about different definitions of pacifism. I’m not one who feels called to stand by and pray while a madman attacks my neighbor. I’m not one who believes that Christians can’t serve on the police force. I don’t think that self-defense, in the strictest sense, is a sin. [Remember that I’ve shared your blog on self-defense with several university classes. The use of physical force, as a last resort, can have it’s place.]
While I’m looking specifically at the concept of Christians bearing arms in military service, I’m wanting to take a good look at all of the relevant passages. Since this passage is brought out again and again to justify all use of weapons, it seems like it needs to be studied in this context.
As for provision, the fact is that Christians are commanded to work. In several passages. That’s a major difference that I see. Besides the commands, we have examples, important examples which Paul refers to in several of his letters. I can think of nothing of the sort regarding the Christian use of weapons, except for Peter’s episode in the garden.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
There’s nothing specific about the Christian use of any particular tools to fulfill their responsibility toward family and neighbor.
I understand that you’re intentionally limiting the conversation- my concern is that Scripture doesn’t lend itself to such categorization. That’s one of the things that has come out of my movement from CENI to a narrative reading of Scripture – a skepticism towards such categorization.
I think you’re on the right track with your limited-involvement with government argument. I appreciate your willingness to tackle tough questions, and your willingness to let me push back a little. I’ve got scars from attacks from both sides on this issue. I wasn’t surprised that people who openly support physical violence were willing to leave scars on my heart and character. The scars from the pacifists are the ironic ones.
Nick,
I guess I’m trying to say that, while the focus of the discussion is on military participation, I’m NOT limiting myself to texts that only discuss that. Which is why I’m discussing Luke 22 in the first place.
As for push back, I definitely welcome it. I don’t have ideas set in concrete on this one. As you’ve said, conversations tend to be pretty one-sided. I was reading one popular blog writer’s posts on pacifism, and he said that pacifists could only arrive at their ideas by cutting out parts of the New Testament, where as non-pacifists use the whole text. It’s that sort of ridiculous statement that keeps us from moving forward.
Thanks for helping me work through all this.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Pingback: THE CHRISTIAN AND PACIFISM « Committed To Truth