Talk to me about Christian Pacifisim

[Katy]

I come from a long line of military.  I can trace military ancestors military service in pretty much every generation through prior to the American revolution (some of them were naval mercenaries for the Spanish).  I have the warrior gene (Thank you 23andme.com for that test).  So maybe it's nature and maybe it's nurture, but I have significant problems understanding how anyone can think pacifism is wise or that Jesus asks us to be pacifists. I tend to interpret the turn the other cheek references as the ultimate form of political defiance. 

 

When people post that video of the kid in Paris being convinced that flowers and candles protect him from "bad people," I stifle the urge to rant about freedom not being free, about it being paid for with blood.  There are also a few things that stop me: The thing about knowledge without love being like a clanging gong, and the knowledge that if it were just my life in question I'd probably choose to die rather than fight back.  If someone else were in danger I'd fight for them, but I'm not sure I would for myself.  Which would be hypocritical because why would my life be less valuable than someone else's?  Also I don't think it's wise to fight against something unless you fully and completely understand the arguments of the other side.  So much so that you could teach them.  And I don't understand pacifism at all.

 

So anyway, if you are a pacifist, or know that theology well, please explain it to me like I'm a six year old.  I do not get it.  But I would like to learn.

[Tsuga]

I am no longer a pacifist or a Christian but was once a Christian pacifist.

 

I strongly encourage you to read the works of Simone Weil, a convert to Catholicism (born secular Jew) and not a full-on pacifist but a philosopher and long-time pacifist. Her life ended in a hunger strike during WWII for the resistance in France. She was my hero (I am that pathetic) when I was young. She is worth reading in any case.

 

The Quakers are a wonderful community. They are Christian pacifists. I would suggest attending some meetings.

 

Leo Tolstoy was a Christian and a Pacifist.

 

I won't explain Christian pacifism because I'm not a Christian any more. I don't know that I'm a pacifist, either. So this is not my place. But I was once... maybe I am a pacifist at heart, actually.

 

Here is a poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay, a pacifist, not a Christian:

 

I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death. 

I hear him leading his horse out of the stall; I hear the clatter on the barn-floor. 
He is in haste; he has business in Cuba, business in the Balkans, many calls to make this morning. 
But I will not hold the bridle while he clinches the girth. 
And he may mount by hinmself: I will not give him a leg up.

Though he flick my shoulders with his whip, I will not tell him which way the fox ran. 
With his hoof on my breast, I will not tell him where the black boy hides in the swamp. 
I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his pay-roll.

I will not tell him the whereabout of my friends nor of my enemies either. 
Though he promise me much, I will not map him the route to any man's door. 
Am I a spy in the land of the living, that I should deliver men to Death? 
Brother, the password and the plans of our city are safe with me; never through me 
Shall you be overcome.

 

Edna St. Vincent Millay

 

 

 

In other words...

 

I'm on the team of life.

 

Am I a spy in the land of the living, that I should deliver men to Death?

 

To me, when I was a Christian (hell, why not, three shots of vodka and my VPN to work tonight is shot), I thought, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." Well how could I risk taking away a single moment to come to Christ? To me that was insane. Better to die saved than to send to Hell.

 

Also, think of Hamlet (for this was on my mind when, at 22, I was in situations in which I would be kill or be killed, if my enemies chose, and I spoke to groups in South Asia and I never denied Christ, not once, if anyone thinks I'm a coward):

 

 

'Tis heavy with him: and am I then revenged,   To take him in the purging of his soul,   When he is fit and season'd for his passage?   No!   Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent:   When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,   Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed; 90   At gaming, swearing, or about some act   That has no relish of salvation in't;   Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,   And that his soul may be as damn'd and black  

As hell, whereto it goes. 

 

 

Sorry for the formatting, but you get the point. In this case, Hamlet chooses not to kill after a confession because he wants him to go to hell. So what worse time to kill, than when your enemy is sinning? Is that the work of God, death?

 

Was freedom paid for with the blood of those willing to kill... or those willing to die? 

 

I too come from a military family. I too served my country overseas. I too may send my dear children to ROTC... 

 

When I was a Christian, it was the knowledge that I would not send someone to hell. Ever. Let me go to heaven.

 

And now...

 

Am I a spy in the land of the living?

 

God is not willing that any should perish. I believed I could know when god wanted me. I did not believe I would know when he wanted another. Hence, I could not kill, nor could any Christian.

 

That's the best I can do for you.

 

Pacifism is not a simple thing. It is the most painful hope I have ever experienced, Katy, and I have sat in a basement during shelling wondering... what would I do if they came for me. And I have driven to a pre-school after a shooting having received a text message about a shooter and wondered, what would I do. Believe me.

 

I guess... I'd rather me any my family die out, than be part of a race in which hope in another was not possible.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/us/georgia-school-shooting-hero/

 

I'd rather be her than shoot a man. Let me die, I'd rather die trying to be her.

 

I don't know if that can be explained. It can only be lived. I have stories from the people I met in war zones. I'll tell you a few. Some were pacifists who survived genocide. I cannot let it go. I cannot let their memories go. To be honest, once you go down that path it haunts you. How could I betray them? I know people who faced armed Talibs, without guns. But me to take a gun?

 

How could I do that?

 

"I had to kill."

 

"I was afraid."

 

"I wanted to save my children."

 

But as a non-Christian, who doesn't believe in hell, maybe I would kill for my children. As a Christian, I trusted God to provide. So I'm less of a pacifist now.

[Zebra]

I don't know anything about the video you are referencing.

 

Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr were pacifists.  It's not that they sat there and did nothing, they were organized and were doing something.  They just refused to use violence as part of their methods.   They did not sit around and light candles and smell flowers.

 

I don't think it's easy to be a pacifist.   I think it's a lot easier in theory than in practice.  Pacifism isn't about being protected, it's about believing participating in violence is wrong no matter what the outcome. 

 

FWIW I do believe it's the example that Jesus left, to not react with violence when you are being oppressed.      

[Nan in Mass]

Wow, Tsuga!

It is hard to say anything after that.

 

The pacifists I know (both Christian and non-Christian) work hard to raise awareness of injustices, teach nonviolent ways of dealing with conflict, and connect people with problems to people who might be able to help solve the problem. It is hard, time consuming work.

 

One argument for being pacifist is that now a days, weapons have become so powerful that war is no longer a viable way to solve a problem.

 

Nan

[MedicMom]

My best friend was Mennonite growing up, from a long tradition of pacifism to which she wholly subscribed. The premise for her is that all life is created in the image of God and is valuable. Her church had a whole theology built around the premise of pacifism. She and I both believed it.

 

And then we had children. And I took a job in a violent city where I am threatened at least once a week.

 

I will do whatever it takes to protect my children. I will do what I need to do to go home to my family. I never start or provoke a fight, I will do my best to de-escalate a situation without violence, but I will protect my children however way I need to.

[FaithManor]

I am not a pacifist per se, but I did read a book once that was very thought provoking, "What about Hitler" by Nathan Hale.

[Joanne]

I am not a Christian or a pacifist. But as time goes on, I find myself moving towards "peaceful" or at least non military responses politically and personally.

 

I have found inspiration on a personal level by abandoning the punitive model of parenting and people management (for neurotypicals). I found support from a more generalized perspective from Quaker writings and history, non-violent communication, Ghandi, Thich Naht Hanh, Einstein, Jane Addams.St. Frances, Dorothy Day.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm not a Christian.  I thought I was a pacifist.  I did not know, however, that pacifism had/was a "theology".  I never saw it that way.

 

But I admit that recently I feel very strongly that certain jerks in the world need to be dealt with and that's unfortunately probably not going to happen peacefully.  To me a peaceful reaction only works with reasonable people.  They aren't reasonable. 

 

So I guess I'm not a pacifist.  I guess I think war should be avoided in almost all circumstances, but I believe that being attacked is not one of those circumstances and I do feel as if this group is in fact attacking and this is a matter of self defense.

 

I really do not get hung up on terminology.  I feel how I feel and see it how I see it.  I don't know what the correct terminology is. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I guess what I have a hard time understanding is why anyone would favor military action in general.  There is nothing pleasant about it.  A lot of innocent people will die.  Those involved who do not die, will be forever affected by things that are hard to deal with.  They will never be the same again and will probably never fully recover.  There isn't anything "pretty" about that.  Which is why I think it should be avoided in general.  I do realize that sometimes, unfortunately, that it can't be. 

[MercyA]

I am anti-war in almost every case, but am not a pacifist.

 

However, to better understand the principles of Christian pacifism, you might try reading A Change of Allegiance by Dean Taylor. Summary of the book: "'Why was war allowed in the Old Testament if it’s wrong for Christians?' 'What if someone broke in your house and threatened your wife and children?' 'Isn’t there such a thing as a Just War?' Dean Taylor and his wife Tania were both in the U. S. Army when they realized that, as committed Christians, they had to come to grip with these questions in a new and sincere quest for truth... As they began to search the Scriptures and church history, they came to the startling discovery that the Christian Church originally was uniformly opposed to Christians going to war or joining the military...Taylor takes the reader on a moving journey through the Scriptures, Christian history, and his own life’s story—demonstrating the incompatibility of Christianity and war."

[Guest]

I will only speak for myself Sparkly - I favor military action when that action, preemptive or responsive, results in the most preservation of life and safety and is the least horrific option.

[Katy]

Can anyone explain the problem of Hitler to me?  I don't see ISIS as that different, actually.  If your alternative is convert or die or be enslaved (and raped and tortured and all that entails), if you don't fight back you are making a choice to let evil people commit evil against everyone. You're making a choice to let evil rule.

 

If there is no greater love than laying down your life for someone else, choosing to risk your life or die by fighting that evil, to risk the lives of a few to save the lives of the many, can be justifiable. I believe in the just war theory.  I also believe in interfering in genocide, which some people think is not part of the just war theory.

 

ETA:  This is not to say that I think many of the wars since WWII were just. 

 

ETA2: Are pacifists also necessarily monarchists?  How do they approach teaching their children about the American revolution that allowed their religions to exist?

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's hard for me to see "laying one's life down" in the name of war as glorious.  For one thing I believe the life we have now is the only life we will ever get.  I don't believe we are going anywhere after we die.  So the most important is the here and now and not what will be later on because there is no later on.

 

I'm sure that is a big part of why I see it the way I do.

 

No pacifists are not monarchists as a rule. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I thought that the definition of "pacifism" in general could pretty much be defined as an opposition to war and violence in all situations, and a belief in peaceful solutions instead. One does not have to be a theist to be a pacifist, and I am very confused by the question of whether they are necessarily monarchists. What does hereditary rule have to do with pacifism?

 

I wonder the same about the monarchist comment. 

 

In terms of the American Revolution, what I was taught in school verses the various things I read about it later on as an adult put a very different spin on it.  We were taught to believe it was entirely about gaining freedom from an oppressive foreign government and that everyone was on board with that and that is all it was about.  Not exactly.  There were other viewpoints.  Those who were most in favor where probably those who stood to lose the most (literally the wealthy who did not want to pay more taxes).  I wasn't there so I can't say for sure.  In terms of saying this was about allowing people to gain religious freedom.  I assume that was about gaining freedom for specific religions and gaining freedom for specific people.  This wasn't about all people and all religions.  There were large numbers of people who weren't treated like citizens at all.  Black people (slaves), native Americans, women, those without much money or power, etc.  So it seems to me that in large part it was a rich white man's war (of the correct religious leaning).

[Onceuponatime]

It's hard for me to see "laying one's life down" in the name of war as glorious. For one thing I believe the life we have now is the only life we will ever get. I don't believe we are going anywhere after we die. So the most important is the here and now and not what will be later on because there is no later on.

 

I'm sure that is a big part of why I see it the way I do.

 

.

I think this is an important observation. Many who think laying down one's life is glorious believe in an eternal reward for doing so. Also, they often seem to take pleasure in ensuring that the enemy "meets its maker" a euphemism for goes to hell.

 

One middle ground between pacifism and annihilation that I have seen advocated is to only respond in kind. Basically, the old fashioned eye for an eye kind of idea. That is a practical way to deal with an enemy, if you think about it. However, I imagine it could get tedious. Personally, I can see no easy solutions, except I do think all religious rhetoric should be eliminated from talk of consequences for violence.

[Katy]

Is it safe to say pacifists would have been against the American Revolution as well?

 

I have read a blog or two about Christian monarchism, they were also pacifist.  The argument was that a monarchy meant you had to trust God's sovereignty rather than the whims of citizens.

[Kathryn]

In my former, pre-homeschooling, life, I processed manuscript collections for a historical library. One of the collections I processed was from a WWII-pacifist. It was very interesting. He went through a lot of turmoil over his beliefs and ended up being jailed after he walked out of a conscientious objector camp even though he felt strongly that they were doing good work (hookworm eradication) because he came to believe that any form of conscription was wrong. He was then refused parole because he refused to carry a draft card. Here is the narrative that I wrote about the collection that describes some of what he went through: http://library.sc.edu/socar/uscs/2007/burref07.html

[SaraBeth]

Hope you don't mind if I jump in.  I am a homeschooling mom, and a Christian (although I was not raised to be one).  

 

I studied this out years ago, when I became a Christian.  It never seemed right to me that Jesus said to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, resist not evil, etc... and then the people that are supposed to follow Him do the opposite.  Jesus said 'If you love me, obey me.'  We believe we are under the new testament and not the old, so we are to follow Jesus' words.  

 

According to the NT, if I love and obey Jesus, and someone kills me, I go to Heaven.  But if I kill an unbeliever (even in self-defense) they would go to hell.  

 

I think a lot of war and self-defense is really taking things into your own hands, when often, we can't change the outcome anyway.  I think God decides.  For instance, America fought England and became free, but we also could have lost.  God allowed what happened.  Other counties have fought to be free and lost.  Other countries are free even though they did not have to fight for it.   

 

There are stories of people who tried to shoot an intruder and shot their own children by accident, and other stories of people (who had no weapons) being providentially saved from intruders in very unique ways.  In the end, I think we control a lot less than we think we do.  

 

Prayer is also very powerful.  I am not 'doing nothing' if I don't have a gun pointed at the bad guy.  Praying to God is something very real.  I have heard amazing stories over the years that have made me cry, when people have trusted in God.  Of course, sometimes bad things do happen, to all kinds of people, whether they are non-resistant or not, but that is part of trusting God too.  (I speak as a Christian, I realize not everyone trusts in God and that is their choice.)

 

 

Kind of random thoughts here... 

 

You might be interested in the book "In God We Don't Trust."   It covers the American Revolution in a way I had never heard before reading it.  

 

 

About Hitler, one thing that stood out to me in my reading, is that most of Hitler's troops were "Christian."  (Lutheran IIRC)  Basically, if they would have stayed home and obeyed the simple words of Jesus, there would not have been enough support for Hitler to succeed.  That just kind of shocked me.

The book "The Kingdom the turned the World Upside Down" by David Bercot talks about this.   

 

 

If you are interested, here is a video to a debate held in Boston not long ago, on the topic of non-resistance vs just war.  

 

 

One more thing to think about as you consider this, is that there is a difference for a lot of people, between pacifism and non-resistance.  

Here is a booklet called "Nonresistance or Pacifism" from CLE.  

 

 

A great book on nonresistance, if you want to read more about it is "Love as Jesus Taught It" by Fred Nighswander.   

 

 

To get more perspectives on this, you can also ask on MennoDiscuss.  

 

 

I think God ordained the government, and it is always going to be here.  But as a Christian, I couldn't feel right about participating in it.  I believe when we become Christians, we join a different kingdom.  I think there are really only two kingdoms- the kingdom of this world, and the kingdom of God.  

 

I also don't believe "the American revolution allowed their religions to exist" like was said above.  Christianity has been here long before the revolution, and is here long after it.  There are believers in very hostile countries all over the world, as there have been for ages, and often their faith is more real than ours, because of their circumstances.  

 

I think, if this is a Christian issue to you, the best thing you can do is search the words of Jesus, and really pray about it.  

 

Let me know if any of that helps.   :001_smile:

 

Edited November 20, 2015 by SaraBeth

[MyLittleBears]

My comment is not meant to be disrespectful. I just want to set the record clear.

The american revolution was not about gaining religious freedom. It was about taxation w/out representation. Americans were not being allowed to vote as were the British citizens in matters concerning taxes on us. Our concerns were not heard but were met by sending the British military to enforce and intimidate.

[Zebra]

Is it safe to say pacifists would have been against the American Revolution as well?

 

I have read a blog or two about Christian monarchism, they were also pacifist.  The argument was that a monarchy meant you had to trust God's sovereignty rather than the whims of citizens.

 

A pacifist would have been against using violence to achieve independence from Britain.   That is completely different from being against the American Revolution, or being pro-monarchy.  

 

I think the vast majority of people believe that violence isn't ok, BUT it is justified in certain situations.   Person A may believe if someone punches you in the face then you are justified in punching them in the face.   Person B may believe you shouldn't punch someone in the face no matter what, but you are justified in declaring war on Hitler.  Pacifists believe no scenario exists where violence is justified. 

[Mbelle]

I  am still learning about this.  I was raised to be CO, although as a woman that is not necessarily going to be a burden for me.  I have always strongly leaned towards nonviolent resistance.  I also teach that belief to my kids and I have 2 boys, so it will be an issue for them in some way if they chose to believe that as well.  I have been studying it a bit more so that I can know why I believe this as a Christian.  It's not a popular belief in most churches.

 

SaraBeth I will look at some of your links.  

 

I think my personality is not inclined to be nonviolent. I would love to get even with people, but I just don't see it working.  To me the middle east is a clear example of doing that over and over again with the same results.  It is not easy.

 

I'll keep following this thread with interest.

[6packofun]

Not Christian and tending away from militarism - but I didn't like the 'flowers and candles' video either. Flowers and candles do not protect us. What protects us is up for debate, but I didn't feel that video was some sort of advertisement for pacifism. Pacifism is robust and active - flowers and candles, in contrast, are very passive symbols.

 

 

I felt very annoyed at the video at first, but the more I thought about it, I think the dad just simplified it TOO much for the child; yet he is also correct in a different sense of "protection".  The flowers, candles, prayers, tears, yes, even memes on Facebook DO protect our *hearts* from becoming cold and dispassionate as violence starts and continues to feel like the norm.  Please keep leaving flowers, so that we know we are still human!  I don't say this to be sappy, either, because that is NOT my personality.  I just think that there are many ways of protecting one another and ourselves.  I consider it a duty, when there are tragedies like this, to NOT turn away, to take it in fully and respond with sadness.  Does that DO anything?  Well, not for others, but it does something for me and that is to keep my conscience alive and active, to force me to mourn with those who mourn and that matters.

[Guest]

I hear what you're saying and that's definitely a positive way of looking at it.

 

Personally, I find flowers and candles mawkish, which probably colours my reactions.

 

I also wonder how long it would be before that bright little boy asked 'But Dad, how do the flowers protect us ?'

 

Even though it's also sappy, I prefer the 'look for the helpers' meme that goes around. It's clear to a child that a policeman is protecting him, a medic is there to help if he gets hurt, his mom is there to soothe him if he has bad dreams. Those things provide direct reassurance that there are adults who will do their utmost to keep him safe.

 

But that's just my preference for how to explain things to kids...

We come at this from entirely different angles but that was my reaction, too.

[Haiku]

The american revolution was not about gaining religious freedom. It was about taxation w/out representation. Americans were not being allowed to vote as were the British citizens in matters concerning taxes on us. Our concerns were not heard but were met by sending the British military to enforce and intimidate.

 

This is the simplified version that we were taught in school, but there are many more (and more complex) reasons that the elite in the colonies chose to pursue independence and war. If you read the Declaration of Independence itself, you will see some (but not all) of the many reasons. For the clearest picture of all the reasons, you have to read multiple primary sources.

[goldberry]

I believe that as a Christian we are not to participate in worldly wars.  To me that is a clear principle.  That doesn't mean I don't struggle with it.

 

The more we live in imitation of God, the more horrified and grieved we are over the injustice in the world.  But trust in God (to me) means that I trust Him to know best how to handle it.  

 

I have been horrified over ISIS and thought someone should do something.  But yesterday I read a headline about how "our hands were tied" by our rules of engagement that limited the amount of "collateral damage" (that would include innocent civilians being killed), and how we just needed to trash those guidelines and get busy!  It just reminded me again of God's wisdom, of how quickly things go bad, and get twisted, even when there are good intentions.  

 

 

[Katy]

I believe that as a Christian we are not to participate in worldly wars.  To me that is a clear principle.  That doesn't mean I don't struggle with it.

 

The more we live in imitation of God, the more horrified and grieved we are over the injustice in the world.  But trust in God (to me) means that I trust Him to know best how to handle it.  

 

I have been horrified over ISIS and thought someone should do something.  But yesterday I read a headline about how "our hands were tied" by our rules of engagement that limited the amount of "collateral damage" (that would include innocent civilians being killed), and how we just needed to trash those guidelines and get busy!  It just reminded me again of God's wisdom, of how quickly things go bad, and get twisted, even when there are good intentions.  

 

That's interesting.  I look at that completely differently. I think our hands are only tied by political opinions.

 

I'm increasingly of the If you're going to create a power vacuum, do what we did after WWII, not WWI.  Stay there for at least 60 years mentality.

[6packofun]

 I hear what you're saying and that's definitely a positive way of looking at it. 

 

Personally, I find flowers and candles mawkish, which probably colours my reactions. 

 

I also wonder how long it would be before that bright little boy asked 'But Dad, how do the flowers protect us ?'

 

Even though it's also sappy, I prefer the 'look for the helpers' meme that goes around. It's clear to a child that a policeman is protecting him, a medic is there to help if he gets hurt, his mom is there to soothe him if he has bad dreams. Those things provide direct reassurance that there are adults who will do their utmost to keep him safe. 

 

But that's just my preference for how to explain things to kids...

 

I agree with you; my thoughts on it are more "adult" and probably would be difficult for a child that young to understand!  I'm not a pacifist, either, but I do try to look for *some* meaning if there's one to be had.  lol  (Maybe there's not?  Ah well, I think that dad did his best, although probably from a different point of view than us. :) )

[Audrey]

I was raised in a military household and that is the largest part of the reason why I am firmly anti-militarism, anti-military and anti-war.  I am not a xtian anymore, but I am still a pacifist.  Theologically, most Anabaptist sects are pacifists, so you might want to take a look at some of their resources, such as, but not limited to, here: http://www.bluffton.edu/~mastg/pacifism.htm

[GinaPagnato]

In Scripture (OT and NT) I see nothing obviously conflicting between being a Christian and participating in war (being in the military).

 

Gideon was a "mighty warrior" who God used to defend his people. So was David, so was Saul, so was Samson, so was Debra, Barak, Ehud, Joshua, the list goes on.

In the NT, Jesus says nothing against military involvement either, nor do the apostles.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek. This is entirely in reference to inter-personal relationships as you can see if you read the passage in context.

He rebuked Peter for cutting off the ear of one of the soldiers of the high priest, but again that was because "the time had come" for His crucifixion.

The command "do not kill"...that is more difficult, but my understanding is that it isn't in reference to a military involvement, but more in terms of taking matters into one's own hands and murdering someone you know personally.

 

If you look at the general prescriptive of Scripture, the essence of the Gospel and the fact that Christ is the Prince of Peace (although this peace is peace between God and man through the reconciliation Christ purchased through his death and resurrection), then you could say by inference that war and killing is against Christianity. And I would agree that Christianity doesn't PROMOTE war, but I'm not so sure you can say that it's wrong as a Christian to participate in war/serve in the military.

 

I'm not a military member, nor do I have military people in my family. But it is something that I've given thought to. Interesting topic!

[MercyA]

I believe that as a Christian we are not to participate in worldly wars.  To me that is a clear principle.  That doesn't mean I don't struggle with it.

 

The more we live in imitation of God, the more horrified and grieved we are over the injustice in the world.  But trust in God (to me) means that I trust Him to know best how to handle it.  

 

I have been horrified over ISIS and thought someone should do something.  But yesterday I read a headline about how "our hands were tied" by our rules of engagement that limited the amount of "collateral damage" (that would include innocent civilians being killed), and how we just needed to trash those guidelines and get busy!  It just reminded me again of God's wisdom, of how quickly things go bad, and get twisted, even when there are good intentions.  

 

Very well said, goldberry.

 

I studied this out years ago, when I became a Christian.  It never seemed right to me that Jesus said to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, resist not evil, etc... and then the people that are supposed to follow Him do the opposite.  Jesus said 'If you love me, obey me.'  We believe we are under the new testament and not the old, so we are to follow Jesus' words.  

 

Great post, SaraBeth, and welcome to the forum! I hope you'll stick around.  :001_smile:

[goldberry]

That's interesting.  I look at that completely differently. I think our hands are only tied by political opinions.

 

I'm increasingly of the If you're going to create a power vacuum, do what we did after WWII, not WWI.  Stay there for at least 60 years mentality.

 

I don't disagree with you politically.  My point was how easy it is to start compromising our ethical values once we are at war.  Once you are in a war, you are trying to win it.  Period.  That's why things go bad and people (and countries) end up doing things that they wouldn't have previously considered ethical to do. How many innocent civilian lives lost are "okay"?  Is torture "okay"?  What else becomes "okay"?

 

We can say certain things become okay, based on what the *other* party is doing.  But when as a Christian have we ever been answerable for the other party?  We are only answerable for our own behavior. Just my thoughts!

[SaraBeth]

I almost didn't reply, because I am really short on time.  But I wanted to at least say something, so here is a quick answer.  

 

Replying in the post, in red. 

 

 

In Scripture (OT and NT) I see nothing obviously conflicting between being a Christian and participating in war (being in the military).

What about the words of Jesus?

 

Gideon was a "mighty warrior" who God used to defend his people. So was David, so was Saul, so was Samson, so was Debra, Barak, Ehud, Joshua, the list goes on.

I believe we are under the NT today, not the OT.   

 

In the NT, Jesus says nothing against military involvement either, nor do the apostles.

He did say not to kill, to love your enemies, etc.  

 

Jesus said to turn the other cheek. This is entirely in reference to inter-personal relationships as you can see if you read the passage in context.

I don't see that.  I read the sermon on the mount, for example, and think it's rather all encompassing. 

 

He rebuked Peter for cutting off the ear of one of the soldiers of the high priest, but again that was because "the time had come" for His crucifixion.

 Personally, I think Jesus would have rebuked His disciples anytime they cut someone's ear off.   :)

 

The command "do not kill"...that is more difficult, but my understanding is that it isn't in reference to a military involvement, but more in terms of taking matters into one's own hands and murdering someone you know personally.

I don't see that in the NT.  

 

If you look at the general prescriptive of Scripture, the essence of the Gospel and the fact that Christ is the Prince of Peace (although this peace is peace between God and man through the reconciliation Christ purchased through his death and resurrection), then you could say by inference that war and killing is against Christianity. And I would agree that Christianity doesn't PROMOTE war, but I'm not so sure you can say that it's wrong as a Christian to participate in war/serve in the military.

But we can be sure Jesus said not to kill, to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc.  

 

I'm not a military member, nor do I have military people in my family. But it is something that I've given thought to. Interesting topic!

It is!  Please don't think I think you have to agree with me.  Just sharing what I have come to by reading the words of Jesus.  Dean Taylor says "What if Jesus meant every word He said?" and I really like that.  I think He did mean what He said, as He said it.  

 

[GinaPagnato]

I almost didn't reply, because I am really short on time.  But I wanted to at least say something, so here is a quick answer.  

 

Replying in the post, in red. 

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts...in general I agree with your line of thinking, but I don't necessarily come to the same conclusion. I am immensely thankful (as I'm sure you are too) for the brave men and women who risk their lives to literally defend our freedom to even have open dialogues like this. So many of them are Christians and lovers of Jesus.

 

And, welcome to the Hive!

[Farrar]

I have a lot of Quaker in me... I worked at an uber Quakery Friends school for many years... But this was always the element I struggled with the most.

 

In reference to some of the historical questions being asked... Most Quakers did not participate in the American Revolution, but some did as support - like aiding American troops or sheltering them, but not others. Ditto in the Civil War - many Quakers were active in the Underground Railroad and continued to be throughout the war. So pacifism is not inaction. That needs to be clear. Same in WWII - the American Friends Service Committee was active in helping refugees and more vocal about the Holocaust at a time when most Americans were ignoring the evidence.

 

Quakers still spend a good bit of time engaged in political activity typically. A friend of mine heads up a large Quaker lobbying group. They work on all kinds of issues trying to encourage peaceful solutions to problems throughout the world.

 

Theologically, it's really about not believing we have the right to engage in violence for any reason. Quakers believe that there's "that of God" in everyone (yeah, even Hitler) and that no one has the right to violate that.

 

ETA: To clarify... I would say that modern Quakerism is only marginally Christian. You might compare it to Unitarianism which has strong Christian roots, some congregations are still very Christian, but others are simply not anymore. Same thing with Quakers.

[Bluegoat]

I'm a Christian, but not a pacifist - not only am I from a military family living in a military town, I was in the army myself for 10 years. (I am a monarchist, but that isn't related in any way to my views on war or violence.)

 

But I don't find Christian pacifism all that hard to understand, and I didn't have a problem with the video (and I didn't see it particularly as promoting pacifism.)  I have a few thought based on the comments so far.

 

1) One of the aspects of pacifism is that you will have to be willing to live under conditions that are very trying, that you do not approve of.  That can take a lot of courage, and also quite a lot of trust, or faith.  This idea that not allowing war is allowing evil people to triumph is part of that - orthodox Christianity, pacifist or not, would tell us that isn't going to happen - good will triumph, and not because we ourselves are willing to somehow force that on others.  An important aspect of Christian pacifism is that trust that says that we do not need to resort to killing ourselves in order to bring about God's kingdom.  Nor will refraining from killing bring about a final destruction.

 

2) Related to this is the idea that ends don't justify means.  generally speaking as CHristians we would say that we are not allowed to do bad things, even if we are going to bring about a result that is good.  Christian pacifists almost always understand killing as something that is in and of itself objectively evil, and it is difficult to argue with that theology so far as it goes. 

 

3) If we allow the evil acts of others to dictate our actions, many would say that is precisely the triumph of evil over good.

 

4) As far as the video - on a surface level I think it would have been totally inappropriate to tell a child that age that the response to terrorist acts should be to hunt people down with guns and kill them ourselves.  It would only have scared him.  But I think in fact the father was quite right to point to flowers and candles.  What do those things symbolize - love, solidarity, a kind of intention not to give in. 

 

My personal view is that violence by the state or in war is only ever justified because the alternatives are clearly worse, and that it only ever gets to that point because of a failure.  Only very rarely is it a failure of one side of the conflict.  Even then, it doesn't seem to really make things better - more often it becomes part of a chain of events that simply catch up more people in the violence.  Certainly in the case of groups like ISIS, violence is a response that not only affects us negatively in a spiritual sense, it feeds into their twisted sense of reality, strengthens their position in many ways, and will likely contribute to a downward spiral.    It may be that flowers and candles would ultimately be a more productive response.

[Bluegoat]

That's interesting.  I look at that completely differently. I think our hands are only tied by political opinions.

 

I'm increasingly of the If you're going to create a power vacuum, do what we did after WWII, not WWI.  Stay there for at least 60 years mentality.

 

I wouldn't say only by political opinions, though that is without a doubt part of it. 

 

I think you are right about the being willing to stay the course thing.  In fact I would say you have a moral obligation at that point, and without providing stability for that long, you are unlikely to see real change.  But there are limits to that - not just political will, and will the voters put up with it, but can you actually put that many troops there for that amount of time?  Can you be effective in controlling things?  Look how Russia fared in Afghanistan.

 

And in the case of the Middle east, so many of the problems have western interference for our own benefit as a significant aspect of the problem, going back for generations.  It doesn't seem that far out to question whether carrying on for another generation is likely to improve things.

[SaraBeth]

GinaP, I am grateful to God for all I have. I don't think things like that are in the hands of any man.

 

Just for instance, we could have an even stronger military but a evil ruler. Or we could have an amazing ruler, but be attacked by terrorists or a new disease. I think America is what it is because *God* allows it, not because of something we as a country do or have.

 

I understand your views though and God bless you. I know there are a lot more who would think like you do than like we do. I appreciate the civil tone on this thread. :)

 

I will say I always want to anonymously pay for military personal when I see them eating out or getting coffee, because I do know they make a big sacrifice for what they believe in. I respect them. I just don't think it's up to we humans who wins wars and things like that. What is the scripture about putting your trust in God and not in human rulers? Sorry I can't look it up right now, but I think it applies here.

 

This isn't all directed just at you, btw. Just sharing my thoughts. And thinking I have to get off here and back to what I'm supposed to be doing!

[Katy]

I'm a Christian, but not a pacifist - not only am I from a military family living in a military town, I was in the army myself for 10 years. (I am a monarchist, but that isn't related in any way to my views on war or violence.)

 

But I don't find Christian pacifism all that hard to understand, and I didn't have a problem with the video (and I didn't see it particularly as promoting pacifism.)  I have a few thought based on the comments so far.

 

1) One of the aspects of pacifism is that you will have to be willing to live under conditions that are very trying, that you do not approve of.  That can take a lot of courage, and also quite a lot of trust, or faith.  This idea that not allowing war is allowing evil people to triumph is part of that - orthodox Christianity, pacifist or not, would tell us that isn't going to happen - good will triumph, and not because we ourselves are willing to somehow force that on others.  An important aspect of Christian pacifism is that trust that says that we do not need to resort to killing ourselves in order to bring about God's kingdom.  Nor will refraining from killing bring about a final destruction.

 

2) Related to this is the idea that ends don't justify means.  generally speaking as CHristians we would say that we are not allowed to do bad things, even if we are going to bring about a result that is good.  Christian pacifists almost always understand killing as something that is in and of itself objectively evil, and it is difficult to argue with that theology so far as it goes. 

 

3) If we allow the evil acts of others to dictate our actions, many would say that is precisely the triumph of evil over good.

 

4) As far as the video - on a surface level I think it would have been totally inappropriate to tell a child that age that the response to terrorist acts should be to hunt people down with guns and kill them ourselves.  It would only have scared him.  But I think in fact the father was quite right to point to flowers and candles.  What do those things symbolize - love, solidarity, a kind of intention not to give in. 

 

My personal view is that violence by the state or in war is only ever justified because the alternatives are clearly worse, and that it only ever gets to that point because of a failure.  Only very rarely is it a failure of one side of the conflict.  Even then, it doesn't seem to really make things better - more often it becomes part of a chain of events that simply catch up more people in the violence.  Certainly in the case of groups like ISIS, violence is a response that not only affects us negatively in a spiritual sense, it feeds into their twisted sense of reality, strengthens their position in many ways, and will likely contribute to a downward spiral.    It may be that flowers and candles would ultimately be a more productive response.

 

 

Thank you.  This is what I was looking for.  I don't know that I agree, but I will be thinking and praying about this in the months to come.  I would love if you would start a spin off thread on benefits of monarchy.

[Cammie]

 

 

I read that England peacefully set it's other colonies free over the years, and America was the only one who warred and lost life over it.  

I think it was in the book "In God We Don't Trust."  The book has a very interesting perspective that I had never heard before.    

http://www.amazon.com/God-We-Dont-Trust/dp/0924722258/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

 

 

 

 

PLEASE please read more about how English colonies got their Independence.  England did not "peacefully set it's other colonies free over the years."  Far from it.

[Scarlett]

I believe that as a Christian we are not to participate in worldly wars. To me that is a clear principle. That doesn't mean I don't struggle with it.

 

The more we live in imitation of God, the more horrified and grieved we are over the injustice in the world. But trust in God (to me) means that I trust Him to know best how to handle it.

 

I have been horrified over ISIS and thought someone should do something. But yesterday I read a headline about how "our hands were tied" by our rules of engagement that limited the amount of "collateral damage" (that would include innocent civilians being killed), and how we just needed to trash those guidelines and get busy! It just reminded me again of God's wisdom, of how quickly things go bad, and get twisted, even when there are good intentions.

It is more than just not participating. It is remaining politically neutral. Which I am thinking is different than being a pacifist.

 

Being politically neutral is not always a natural course. But normally I view affairs of the this world very disconnected. As if they are puppets on a string. Nothing every changes.

[J-rap]

My wonderful DIL is from a Mennonite background and is staunchly pacifist.  It has been really insightful and helpful to discuss this with her.  I always said that if I had a gun I wouldn't even hesitate to shoot Hitler or similar in order to save thousands of lives, but I believe a true pacifist (such as my DIL) would not even do that.

 

I was going to link a Christian theologian who is a pacifist, but for some reason I can't get on his site right now.  I'm not certain to what extent he takes it, but I really respect his views and I know this is a subject he has blogged about more than once. 

 

This is his blog site:

 

http://reknew.org/blog/

 

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Thank you.  This is what I was looking for.  I don't know that I agree, but I will be thinking and praying about this in the months to come.  I would love if you would start a spin off thread on benefits of monarchy.

 

Hmm, I will see if I can do that - I'll quote your post.

[Katy]

My wonderful DIL is from a Mennonite background and is staunchly pacifist.  It has been really insightful and helpful to discuss this with her.  I always said that if I had a gun I wouldn't even hesitate to shoot Hitler or similar in order to save thousands of lives, but I believe a true pacifist (such as my DIL) would not even do that.

 

I was going to link a Christian theologian who is a pacifist, but for some reason I can't get on his site right now.  I'm not certain to what extent he takes it, but I really respect his views and I know this is a subject he has blogged about more than once. 

 

This is his blog site:

 

http://reknew.org/blog/

 

Thank you.  I'll read this.

 

[MercyA]

I don't have much time, but wanted to chime in here.

 

I'm not a pacifist, but as a Christian, I absolutely would have been opposed to the Revolutionary War. Government abuses like the ones named in the “Intolerable Acts†weren't worth killing people over. Furthermore, Romans 13 says, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.†This seems quite clear to me. I am to be in subjection to the government, unless they ask me to sin.

 

Regarding the military and war, here's the way I think about it: How much sin does God need me to commit—or to support--to make sure His will is accomplished? As an example, a fellow Christian once said he would support a pro-life candidate lying about his position to better his chances of securing a seat on the Supreme Court. In this person's mind, the lie would be justified by lives that would potentially be saved. Christians are clearly and repeatedly instructed by Scripture never to lie. So, the question is: does God need a politician to lie to accomplish His purposes? The answer seems simple to me: of course not. Tell the truth and trust God with the consequences.
 

Following that train of thought, I believe that deliberately or knowingly causing the death of an innocent human being is always morally wrong. The military sometimes kills innocent people. I can't be a part of that, as a Christian, and I can't support it. Do I need to worry about the consequences of being unwilling to support or participate in the military? No, “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.†God has given governments the responsibility of bearing the sword. He sets up governments, sometimes in blessing and sometimes in judgement, and He brings them down. My responsibility to be faithful to Christ.

 

Thinking through this issue, I'm also reminded of an article that someone recently posted here on the forum. It described work being done for the homeless in Utah, work largely supported by the Mormon church. A journalist asked a housing authority employee why the Mormon church donated so much money to the project. The man replied, “I think they believe all that stuff in the New Testament about helping the poor. That's kind of crazy for a religion, I know, but I think they take it quite seriously." That was a very convicting thing for me as a non-Mormon to read. I believe Jesus when He told us to take care of the poor, and I believe Him when he said “love your enemies.†I can't love my enemies by killing them.  

Edited November 20, 2015 by MercyA

[SaraBeth]

 

 

 

I am sorry- that's probably what I get for posting when I'm in a rush and surrounded by children.  

 

I am thinking of the countries that set their slaves free without any bloodshed, as opposed to America.   One example would be the Slavery Abolition Act that ended slavery throughout that British Empire (over 760,000 slaves) without any war.  The books says America is the only country on earth that had to fight a war to end slavery, and uses wikipedia for the reference.

 

I'll go back and edit.  

[SaraBeth]

I agree, MercyA.  

 

 

I think the heart of non-resistance, is if someone is willing to just take Jesus at His word... and trust and obey Him.    

 

When Jesus says, "Do not kill," do His believers believe He meant it?  Or do we think he meant "Do not kill unless you really feel like you ought to sometimes."  There is just no way to turn the other cheek, resist not evil, love your enemies, avenge not ourselves... and shoot people dead.  I think it's one way or the other.  The Bible says not to do evil so that good may come.  

 

It makes me think of my children.  When I say, "Don't hit your brother," I mean "Don't hit your brother!"  I do not mean, "Don't hit your brother unless you get really mad at him, or he hits your first, or he hits Susie and you think I don't see.... "  

I want my children to obey me because it really is for their own good, even if children don't always understand that yet.  I think it's the same with God the Father and His children (us).  God can see the big picture (eternity) and it's hard for us to see anything past right where we are.  

 

I love the idea of Gelassenheit and think it definitely applies here.  

 

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by SaraBeth

[Jasperstone]

I'm not into the whole military thing and mindset, as I believe they have other agendas going on for provoking war etc....

But I believe 100% that we have the right to defend our loved ones!!!

[Teannika]

When it came time for Jesus to be crucified he knew what was going to happen and the persecution to follow, so he changed the command:

 

Luke 22

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

[SaraBeth]

When it came time for Jesus to be crucified he knew what was going to happen and the persecution to follow, so he changed the command:

 

Luke 22

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

 

Just really quick again, because I only have a few minutes...

 

Some people believe He did that to fulfill the scriptures, so that He would be counted a transgressor by having the swords.  

 

Also, that big group only ended up with two swords, and Jesus said it was enough.  It seems more symbolic to a lot of people, because that is not really near enough swords for them.

 

I don't believe that Jesus would preach something like the Sermon on the Mount, and then change it privately later on. 

 

And Jesus already covered persecution- He said to flee, not kill.  

 

The rest of the NT books say things like "Avenge not yourselves." "We strive not against flesh and blood."  "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink... overcome evil with good."  To me, a lot of NT verses support non-resistance, when it's read it without the modern American mindset influencing the way we read it.  

 

 

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

 

39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

 

 

Anyway, there are better arguments out there than mine, and wonderful books on the topic if you want to look into it.  

Edited November 21, 2015 by SaraBeth

[SaraBeth]

I'm not into the whole military thing and mindset, as I believe they have other agendas going on for provoking war etc....

But I believe 100% that we have the right to defend our loved ones!!!

 

 

We can each believe however we want.  : )

 

Personally, I don't think "having rights" to do this or that is really a NT concept.  The concepts I see are more along the lines of sacrifice, obedience, trusting in God, having faith, etc.  

Edited November 21, 2015 by SaraBeth