As we look at reasons for not participating in any nation’s military, it’s obvious that we need to look at what Jesus taught, as well as the rest of the New Testament. I read a piece by Patrick Mead where he claimed that the only way to support pacifism was to cut certain portions out of the New Testament. While I understand his feeling (I feel the same toward military involvement), such an attitude is counterproductive to biblical discussions. I won’t claim that those who choose to participate ignore Scripture. I disagree with them on how to interpret certain passages. And I think their interpretation is more reflective of our culture and society than it is of biblical teaching.
At some point, we have to take the Sermon on the Mount (and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke) seriously. The sayings are hard. As I’ve written about before, some want to explain them away through various creative strategies. But we can’t get away from the fact that Jesus taught that it’s better to let an evil man have his way than to retaliate. Turning the other cheek, letting people rob us and take advantage of us, loving enemies… none of these things are easy nor come naturally. Jesus was saying that what is natural isn’t right, that we have to overcome our human impulses and replace them with spiritual ones.
“Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” These words were spoken as a rebuke, not merely as a commentary on life. Jesus wasn’t just saying that his disciples weren’t to defend him at that moment. He was saying that there are those who live by the sword… and they aren’t us! We aren’t them. Jesus’ followers are not to live by the sword.
What about the New Testament passages that talk about Jesus coming to execute judgment on his enemies? Aren’t those violent passages? Of course they are. Which is why Paul reminds us that vengeance belongs to God. He will do it. Just as we aren’t to judge because there is only one judge, we aren’t to avenge because there is only one avenger. Passages that show God doing violence argue against our doing the same.
We live in a militarized society. That colors the way we read Scripture. It leads us to look for every exception and every loophole to allow us to follow the current of our culture. We need to recapture the countercultural spirit. We need to seek to be a holy people. Jesus called us to a higher standard. I think we need to stop trying to talk our way around that and merely seek to live it.
I drive to work every day. Do I “live by the car?”
By the same token, “living by” a tool and using a tool are two very different concepts.
Nick,
Please flesh that out. What would “living by the sword” look like to you?
Seemingly Jesus thought Peter was “living by the sword” at that moment, right? That’s my understanding, anyway.
I agree, Jesus thought Peter was “living by the sword” at that moment. That’s why I don’t think Peter was merely defending Jesus.
I think Peter thought that it was time to get it on – it was time for Jesus and his disciples to do what Messianic movements did when they went to Jerusalem and confronted the powers.
It was time for the kingdom of God to go to war against the powers that held the true Israel enslaved. From the garden, they’d go to the Temple, where YHWH would grant them the glorious victory and vindicate them as the representatives of the true Israel by slaughtering the Romans and the false Jews who supported the anti-messianic forces.
I think, then, that “living by the sword” means more than just using that particular tool. It means choosing violence to be the means by which you strive for what you live for. Not just a “necessary evil” or a “last resort” but the hallmark of the movement – the identifying characteristic of your life.
To begin applying this idea to military participation, I would again assert that it comes down to motives. Have you joined the military to spread the borders of your country? To acquire personal power or glory? Or do you believe that your participation in the military is an act of standing in the gap against tyranny or oppression?
The question of whether you’re doing it for yourself or on behalf of others also comes into play, I think. Jesus taught clearly about how to respond when the evil man attacks me. He did not speak so clearly about how I should respond when the evil man attacks a third party. Non-retaliation is pretty clear – our options for defending others… not so clear, I think.
Nick,
Your discussion of personal motivation is one of the main reasons I feel no need to condemn those who choose to join the military. Most do so for very noble reasons.
But the bigger questions need to be asked. Sincerity alone is not enough. My wife’s uncle joined the police force in Argentina to serve and protect. He was proud of the valiant way he helped defend the country against radical elements in the 70s. Learning later that he had been a pawn to a heartless military regime almost broke his heart. He went into a depression that almost destroyed him.
I’m going to address that issue later, but it fits here, as well. Even if someone isn’t personally seeking vengeance or promoting imperialism, if they are being used for that, is it not just as bad? I’m sure there were Germans who served the Nazi regime for noble reasons… but they were part of something horrifying. When we join ourselves to a larger group, don’t we have some responsibility to consider what the group as a whole is doing?
One of the key points in this post – and one that I believe all can agree on – is that we must regain a counter cultural way of thinking. As long as our world view is shaped more by the angst of the world than it is by the cross of Christ, our reactions will be worldly, not Christian.
Can there be a time when self-defense is appropriate and approved by God? I used to think not; now, I’m not so sure. Should we “do evil that good may come”? My instincts are still to follow a pacifist stance.
Tim,
Did you read Matt Dabbs comments on the Sermon on the Mount a few weeks ago. He argues that Jesus is teaching a kind of resistance. That going the extra mile actually puts the Roman soldier in a precarious position with his superiors. Turning the other cheek asks for the slapper to slap you in a way that suggests equality (back hand vs. forehand slapping).
While my immediate thought is, then why did Jesus flatly say “Do *not* resist an evil person?,” it does nevertheless seem as though Jesus practiced a kind of resistance, just not the kind of resistance that returns in kind what was received.
What do you think?
–guy
Surely “live by the sword” cannot be defined by personal motivation. Plenty of people do evil for good reasons. Plenty of people aim to do good though their practices are wrong. i could lie to save someone’s feelings or reputation. It’s still lying. It’s still failing to let me “yes” be yes and my “no” no, even if in my heart i still believe that lying isn’t the way to acquire what i’m striving for in life.
i thought “live by the sword” was more literal than that–seeking to preserve life by violence. “Live” then is as literal as “die” in the same statement.
–guy
Jerry,
To be honest, I still see room for some degree of self-defense. And defense of others. I’m continuing to wrestle through just what that looks like.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Guy,
I would say, like so many things, that Jesus redefined resistance. That is, he would not resist in the way the other expected nor in the way the world would resist. By refusing to let the other person “press his buttons,” Jesus was resisting.
Tim
Tim,
I think I agree completely with where you’re going about the bigger questions, as long as some of those questions are about what the person actually did during their time of imperial employment. I mean, is the truck repairman as guilty of genocide as the SS officer, simply because of the uniform they share? I’m not suggesting that you’re saying he is – just adding more “big questions” to the pot. A Christian choosing to enter military service does indeed need to consider the motives of his nation, as well as his own.
I don’t think it is enough to take Jesus’ teachings seriously, though we need to do that. I think we also have to take the life Jesus lived seriously. That is a life that refused the power of the world and instead embraced the cross. It doesn’t take much historical study of 2nd temple Judaism to know that had Jesus desired to lead a violent revolution or achieve his mission by means of violent/coercive power, he could have easily done so. But he didn’t and this ethic/virtue of the self-sacrificial servitude that modeled most definitively in the cross is something the apostolic teaching embraced as it sought to instruct an emerging Jesus movement in the way the movement should live (i.e., 1 Cor 1.23ff; Phil 2.5-8; 1 Pet 2.20ff).
This is the reason why I gave the notion of “just-violence/war” and now believe pacifism to be the appropriate ethic of Jesus followers. It’s not because pacifism can be upheld without any lingering questions. It’s because I came to the conclusion that we are called to follow Jesus in the way he taught us how to live and that all of scripture needs to be read through this Christological lens.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Excellent point, Rex
Nick,
Some of the “big questions” that you’re raising are what led Lipscomb to say that voting was wrong. He said that anyone who voted would become guilty of every violent act committed by the government and its military.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Before I could justify killing someone, for whatever reason, I would have to ask myself a couple questions.
1) If my life life on earth is cut short, would that be a bad thing considering to live is Christ, to die is gain (Phil. 1:21)?
2) Is my life on earth more valuable than their eternal soul?
This of course is talking from a me/them standpoint. The scenario would be different if there were other people with me (family, friends, ect.). I still think I would rather lay down my life if I thought it would give somebody else a chance to escape. All something that needs thought about for sure. That all has to do with self defense, I still can’t find rationale for deliberately putting yourself in a position to kill someone.
That being said, you can join the military and never have to kill anybody, and I’m fairly certain a supporting role (mechanic, cook, ect.) wouldn’t be condemned because frankly, even soldiers need Christ. And what better way than to have a Christian present foreign or domestic?
‘The Case For Non-Participation’ –
There’s something about this title that just kinda bugs me. I understand we are talking of participating in the military establishment. But that also leads to all type of other activities. Political activism (we all to make this a better country – don’t we?), volunteering for one cause or another, being a consummate theater goer, or well rounded sports guy. And I can pretty much convince myself – that these are things not of Christ.
So maybe what we should be exploring is ‘A Case For Participating’. In what? People, the walk of Christ, the attributes of love, the gifts of the Spirit. There may be a chance if we bore our time and talents with the aforementioned, then the way we make a living, would not matter much, since we have dedicated ourselves to Him, instead of our own desires of being what ‘we want to be’.
Probably more easier said than done though.
Ed,
I understand your concern. It’s somewhat similar to something I addressed in a post that contrasted pacifism with passivism (passivity). We definitely need to be active, and complete withdrawal is not the answer. To some degree, it’s the idea of being “good aliens” in our host countries (like Jeremiah 29), rather than full-blown participants in society.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Lipscomb’s passionate argument hooked me for a little while, until I extended the conclusion to the One who has, at times, elevated certain men to positions of power on the earth. Is He guilty of their sins, because He put them in place?
Nick,
I think Lipscomb was so strongly affected by his experiences during the Civil War that he at times overstated his case.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer