Christianity & Pacifism

[Webb]

Hi Mcgyver--I left you a message on the John the Baptist thread dated Oct.26, post # 91. It probably got covered up and you didn't notice it. BTW, I was a United States Marine, Korean waw vintage.

 

[Butch5]

Here's a thought that occurred to me:

An army...any army...exists for one purpose only. After all the layers of the onion are peeled away, after everything is said and done, an army exists to go and kill who ever they are told to kill; until they are told to stop. That's what an army does...

Now within the US Army, we have 3 basic elements: Combat Arms (the shooters), Combat Support (Military Police et.al.) and Combat Service Support (the ones who keep the whole thing running: Finance specialists, records keepers, Cooks, Quartermasters, and the like.). At least that was the organization when I was Active Duty so many years ago.

No matter what one's job within the Army, everyone is a "cog in the machine" that allows the Army to fulfill the above stated mission.

Let's look at a Chaplain...he is unarmed and considered a non-combatant. Yet in wearing the uniform he is also part of that machine, even as he ministers to the needs of soldiers in his charge.

So then, is this Chaplain (in obeying Christ's command to be salt and light) sinning against God in that he is in the military? Even though he is unarmed and a non-combatant?

If so (and this is an additional question); are we stating that there is one place (the military) that is off-limits to the sharing of the light of Christ? One place that no Christian may be a missionary to the unsaved?

Curious....

Hi mcgyver,

My answer to your question would be yes, the pastor is sinning. To answer your second question is the military off limits to evangelism the answer I would give is no. However, it must be done without acting contrary to the commands of Christ.

 

[rrowell]

Right, because the Bible is silent about that. The doctrine of absolute pacifism depends on the assumption that Cornelius was told that he had to quit the Roman Army. Show me the Scripture that even remotely suggests such a thing. It is because you can't that the argument is "made from silence," that is, from something the Bible says nothing about.

What we do know is that God found him acceptable while he was in the military, baptized him in the Holy Spirit and and there was no mention of him being told to repent of the "sin" of not being a pacifist before being baptized in water. It was a non-issue. There is no such thing as a "sin of not being a pacifist." That's what the bible is silent about.

Some of the greatest military leaders were from biblical times, Abram being one of them, and the US military still uses some of his tactics today.

Also, Peter wasn't carrying a sword here for peeling apples

John 18:10 (KJV)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

 

[Butch5]

Right, because the Bible is silent about that. The doctrine of absolute pacifism depends on the assumption that Cornelius was told that he had to quit the Roman Army.

Not at all, the doctrine of pacifism does not rely on the incident with Cornelius at all. The doctrine comes from the mouth of Christ.

Show me the Scripture that even remotely suggests such a thing. It is because you can't that the argument is "made from silence," that is, from
something the Bible says nothing about.

Again, I'm not making the argument from Cornelius, that is the position you're coming from and it's invalid. Cornelius only came up due to the question from mcgyver, it was not a part of my argument. Unless one can show that Cornelius continued to use violence after his conversion there's no argument.

What we do know is that God found him acceptable while he was in the military, baptized him in the Holy Spirit and and there was no mention of him being told to repent of the "sin" of not being a pacifist before being baptized in water. It was a non-issue. There is no such thing as a "sin of not being a pacifist." That's what the bible is silent about.

Why do you continue to argue from silence? You say it was a non issue, however, you have no way of knowing that, the Scriptures say nothing on the issue. To say it was a non issue is speculation. What we do know is that Cornelius did serve in the military and we know he was converted. The Scriptures tell us nothing more about Cornelius. However, the Scriptures do tell us what Paul said.

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 KJV)

Paul told the Thessalonians to hold the traditions that they had been taught. We know from the historical record that the early Christians did just that. For the first 300 years the church taught that Christians were not to use violence for any reason. We also know from the historical record that if a person was a Christian and then joined the military they were excommunicated. There were those who were already in the military already when they became Christians and the record shows that the church would baptism them into the body with their vow that they would not use the sword.

We see this is the historical record for about the first 300 years of church history. It was also a universal teaching so we can see how they understood what was taught by Jesus and the apostles. If one must make a logical deduction about Cornelius, I think the evidence shows which conclusion one would come to.

 

[Butch5]

Some of the greatest military leaders were from biblical times, Abram being one of them, and the US military still uses some of his tactics today.

Also, Peter wasn't carrying a sword here for peeling apples

John 18:10 (KJV)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

Actually, he may have been. The Greek word used there is actually a large knife/small sword.

 

[Drew]

Cool...let's talk about this for a moment and place it into its proper historical context.

First of all, the charge against Jesus was not blasphemy...the Romans (especially Pilate) could care less about blasphemy. The charge against Jesus was sedition, a crime punishable by death under Roman law.....

Fine - I have no reason to doubt this analysis, but, as per what follows, I do not think it threatens the force of the argument I am setting forth.

Jesus is not going to lie (obviously), so He tells Pilate the truth: That He (Jesus) is indeed a King, but His kingdom is not of this world. He then goes on to state that if He were a King in the manner of worldly kings, then His servants (or armies) would fight to prevent His capture. "But" Jesus goes on to say: "My Kingdom is not of this world".

This is where I will challenge your analysis. As per post 111, Jesus is not suggesting that his kingdom is "other worldly" and that, for this reason, does not threaten Caesar. So while I can see how your argument would hold together and make sense if Jesus were declaring Himself to be a king of an other-worldly domain, I suggest that this is not something He is actually saying.

I politely suggest that one of the most well-supported Biblical truths out there is that Jesus is a presently ruling sovereign over this very world. Beware the effects of the Enlightenment to which you and I are heirs (assuming you are a westerner like me). One consequence of the Enlightenment was the splitting apart of two domains that the Bible never would separate: "religion" and "politics".

When Jesus says He is a King, and when Paul says He is Lord, both would be understood by 1st century readers as specifically political claims.

 

[Drew]

First there is the issue of self-defense/defense of one's family.

I really don't see where Christ at any time prohibited one from defending one's self or one's family (which I'll simply lump into the phrase "self-defense).

I agree that Jesus never addressed this issue in particular. But I trust you will agree that Jesus never intended to address each and every scenario His followers would face, and provide them with guidelines for each.

I see no Biblical reason for an "exception" when defending family or self. In fact, in specific relation to "self" at least, I suggest it is clear that we are to follow Jesus' example of self-sacrificial loving of enemies, even unto death. A hard teaching, to be sure, but I think its there.

I have little doubt that I would probably try to use force as a last resort to defend self and / or family and other people as well. But that doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

Although you can probably understand why I have reservations about doing so, I suggest that it may be helpful to separate "force as a last resort at the level of the individual" from the issue of using a strong military to project force and effectively bully others, even if the force is not actually used to do so. With all due respect, I believe that many nations are guilty of the latter, and that many of their Christian citizens approve.

If we could at least agree that it is entirely anti-gospel to use the implied threat of force in order to "get things done", that might be a start. I suspect you will agree with this, but, frankly, I believe many Christians will not. These Christians, I politely suggest, are calling Jesus "Lord", on the one hand, yet embracing Ceasar's model of doing power, on the other.

Having said this, I do not really see a Biblical basis for drawing such distinctions, although, as I am sure you will understand, I would find it very difficult to eschew the use of force in certain situations.

 

[Drew]

It is not the call of Christ's followers to resist Rome. It is our call to die WITH Him on His Cross and to "fill up in our flesh what is lacking of His sufferings."

With no small amount of trepidation I have, over the last few years, come to believe that your assertion here is essentially correct.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings Drew,

I'd like to hear your reply to Post 155 as it addresses those in law enforcement and military service.

(thank you)

 

[Drew]

Greetings Drew,

I'd like to hear your reply to Post 155 as it addresses those in law enforcement and military service.

(thank you)

I plan to get to it - I am "catching up".

 

[mcgyver]

Hi mcgyver,

I agree with much of what you've said here, and I would submit that there is a clear prohibition in the Scriptures. You have hear it said an eye for an eye, but I tell you do not resist the evil. Resisting evil is the very purpose of the military and law enforcement.

I realize that the Ante-Nicene writers did have areas that we could question. However, I think the universality of the teaching speaks strongly to the issue.

Hey Butch...thanks for your replies.

I'd like to talk about the phrase: "I tell you do not resist the evil" as a matter of universal application.

First of all, we both know that the definition of "anthistemi" (translated here ''resist") means:

1.to set one's self against, to withstand, resist, oppose. 2.to set against


So then...


On one hand Jesus tells us not to resist the evil, but then He Himself resists and opposes evil at every turn. He opposes the Pharisees, dumps over tables in the temple, withstands temptation in the wilderness, and sets Himself against the works of the Devil.



His Disciples set themselves against and withstand the ruling authorities when they are commanded not to proclaim the name of Christ...though beaten for it they proclaim Jesus boldly.



If we are not to resist the evil in the manner that you seem to be using it, why then does the Holy Spirit tell us to resist the very personification of evil: Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4:7


Obviously there is a problem with consistency of application evident.


Let's say that one looks out their window at 3:00 am and sees someone setting fire to their neighbor's house. I submit that in calling 911 that they would in fact be resisting evil. It may be the Police that "do the dirty work" yet the individual who made the phone call is the reason they show up in the first place.


I submit then, that the possibility exists that within the context of the passage, Jesus was speaking in a narrow range and did not intent His words to be a universal rejection of resistance to all evil. Furthermore, within Greek anthistemi can carry with it a shade of meaning or the idea of speaking to vengence/revenge.


If I say that:"I'm blue today because I lost my job" I think it safe to say that you aren't going to think that I'm reflecting a certain spectrum of light, nor am I suffering oxygen deprivation (though some might argue that point )...but as an American English speaker you'd understand that I am depressed.


Take that same sentence, write it down, then sometime in the future translate it into a language that won't exist for a thousand years...and we'd have to look at the context to figure out what I meant.


This is what I am saying where the phrase: I tell you do not resist the evil is concerned. Otherwise we can't help but run into problems in applying this principle in a consistent manner.


What are your thoughts?

 

[mcgyver]

I plan to get to it - I am "catching up".

I'll let you get caught up before I respond to your other posts.

 

[Drew]

Hope that clears things up, Drew. You're free to believe what you want, but if you want to know why Jesus told Peter to sheath his sword, I'd suggest that you look at what he said to Peter, not what he said to Pilot when asked if he were the King of the Jews.

Why? Why do you (seemingly) dismiss what Jesus says to Pilate as if what He said to Peter renders His statement to Pilate irrelevant? What Jesus tells Pilate seems entirely unambiguous to me. Properly understood, that is with the "of this world" translation error sorted out, we have Jesus basically asserting that He is indeed a king of this present world and that it is the nature of citizenship in that Kingdom that its members do not use force. I do not see how this statement can be coherenty understood otherwise.

Now about Peter: I assume you are refer to the "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" saying. I am not sure how you read this passage (have I missed your interpretation of it), but let's suppose your position is something like this: "Jesus is criticizing those who make it an habitual practice to achieve ends through force, not those who use force for self-defence".

Well, of course, such an interpretation of what Jesus says to Peter seems quite plausible. But it cannot be viewed in isolation. If we have other statements from Jesus that take an even more "pacifist" line - and I think we do - we need to read the statement made to Peter accordingly.

In short, what Jesus says to Peter is not inconsistent with a "hardcore" pacifist position even though, viewed in isolation, the statement to Peter could, of course, work with the position that its acceptable to use force in a number of circumstances.

However, I am only speculating as to how you read the statement to Peter. But the statement to Pilate cannot be dismissed. And perhaps more to the point, I believe that the statement to Pilate, set as it is in the context of the issue of rescuing Jesus from certain death, cannot really work with the view that Jesus accepts the use of force for defence of loved ones.

 

[mcgyver]

This is where I will challenge your analysis. As per post 111, Jesus is not suggesting that his kingdom is "other worldly" and that, for this reason, does not threaten Caesar. So while I can see how your argument would hold together and make sense if Jesus were declaring Himself to be a king of an other-worldly domain, I suggest that this is not something He is actually saying.

My brother, after reading post 111 (and I say this kindly and without any rancor or insult intended) I fear that you are splitting hairs...because contextually "of this world" and "from this world" mean precisely the same thing.

Jesus is telling Pilate that the origin of His (Jesus') kingdom, the point of authority for His kingship, His power as a King is not to be found in any worldly government or system...it is not to be found in force of arms.

Perhaps I should have clarified that from the beginning.

Pilate understands that Jesus, who has been brought to him under a charge of sedition, is not trying to overthrow Caesar. Jesus is not trying to establish a kingdom in Israel, nor is Jesus fomenting rebellion against Rome....and that the key: What did Pilate understand Jesus to say?

In that Pilate tries in a determined manner to release Jesus (considering Pilate's tenuous position as "a friend of Caesar") I think lends creedence to this very (imputed) understanding on the part of Pilate.

Additionally, Jesus draws the parallel of His servants fighting to prevent His arrest, were His kingdom of/from this world.

There are 5 or 6 words in Greek translated as "servants", and here Jesus uses the word: Huperetes...this word originally was a military word which meant "rower" to distinguish one from a foot-soldier. In Jesus' day huperetes (depending on the context) held the synonymous meaning of a "Praetorian Guard", among others.

Once again, Jesus is drawing a picture that the Roman Pilate understands...and when one considers that at this time the Praetorian Guard pretty well determined who would be Caesar...the picture becomes clear I think.

I politely suggest that one of the most well-supported Biblical truths out there is that Jesus is a presently ruling sovereign over this very world. Beware the effects of the Enlightenment to which you and I are heirs (assuming you are a westerner like me). One consequence of the Enlightenment was the splitting apart of two domains that the Bible never would separate: "religion" and "politics".

I agree with the first point, and I'd love to discuss in another thread the second...

When Jesus says He is a King, and when Paul says He is Lord, both would be understood by 1st century readers as specifically political claims.

I would respectfully disagree with the second part of your assertion here...the word Kurios (Lord) was specifically a term of deity. The Romans when deifying Caesar referred to Caesar as Kurios.

By the middle to late 1st Century the Greek Kurios had acquired the same meaning synonymously as the Hebrew "Yahwey". In fact when Paul writes to the church in Rome, we see him saying in Romans 10:9-10 "that if you will confess with your mouth the Lord {Kurios} Jesus...." Literally that if you will confess with the mouth that Jesus Christ is God....

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings Drew,

I'd like to hear your reply to Post 155 as it addresses those in law enforcement and military service.

(thank you)

Drew,

Kindly pardon me, but I must abandon my request for your reply and use the "Thread Tools" to unsubscribe from this discussion.
Godspeed,

Sparrow

P.S.
PM me if you have seen "Bramwell". I'm watching season 4, the episode entitled, "Our Brave Boys" even as I write you here.

 

[cupid dave]

So, is the Policeman also anti-christian?

Isn't the Policeman the domestic Army and analoous to the duty of Law and Order which a Standing Army represents internationally?

 

[rrowell]

With all of the Old testament prophets being militant leaders, why does Pacifism bring such turmoil today?

 

[Drew]

With all of the Old testament prophets being militant leaders, why does Pacifism bring such turmoil today?

If by this, you are making the argument that since God countenanced, and actually promoted, military action in the Old Testament, He (God) must therefore accept military action today, I would challenge that.

The Bible is an evolving narrative, not a set of timeless truths. Examples of what I mean:

1. The Law of Moses was not in existence till Sinai, and it was abolished at Calvary.

2. We are now, in some sense at least, under a new covenant.

3. The kingdom of God only "came to earth" with Jesus, 2000 years ago.

In light of all this dynamism - all the ways in which things are changing as God's plans unfold - we cannot simply assume that "what was OK under old covenant is ok under the new".

In fact, we have every reason to expect a lot of things have changed. After all, if the advent of the Kingdom of God - which Jesus initiated 2000 years ago - does not mean that some important things are changing, what would it mean?

 

[rrowell]

If by this, you are making the argument that since God countenanced, and actually promoted, military action in the Old Testament, He (God) must therefore accept military action today, I would challenge that.

The Bible is an evolving narrative, not a set of timeless truths. Examples of what I mean:

1. The Law of Moses was not in existence till Sinai, and it was abolished at Calvary.

2. We are now, in some sense at least, under a new covenant.

3. The kingdom of God only "came to earth" with Jesus, 2000 years ago.

In light of all this dynamism - all the ways in which things are changing as God's plans unfold - we cannot simply assume that "what was OK under old covenant is ok under the new".

In fact, we have every reason to expect a lot of things have changed. After all, if the advent of the Kingdom of God - which Jesus initiated 2000 years ago - does not mean that some important things are changing, what would it mean?

Thank you Drew, this is exactly the response I was looking for, and I agree with you 100%,

Now my question is (not intending to throw this off topic, but to make a point) why do these same Christians when it comes to Pacifism hold to the fact it was done in the old testament, not demonstrated in the new, therefore it does not hold today, these same Christians use instrumental music which too was never demonstrated in the new testament, only in the old...

Apparently going to war for any reason does not make a supposed Christian feel good so they adhere to the "silent where the bible is silent"

But when it comes to instrumental music, it makes them (not God, he never commanded it) feel good, so now the silence of the bible doesn't matter anymore

 

[Drew]

Now my question is (not intending to throw this off topic, but to make a point) why do these same Christians when it comes to Pacifism hold to the fact it was done in the old testament, not demonstrated in the new, therefore it does not hold today, these same Christians use instrumental music which too was never demonstrated in the new testament, only in the old...

I cannot speak for other people, but if you are pointing out the need for consistency, I would obviously agree.

Apparently going to war for any reason does not make a supposed Christian feel good so they adhere to the "silent where the bible is silent"

Not sure I understand your basic position on the pacifism issue, but I have yet to read all your posts.