Christianity & Pacifism

[smaller]

Well said Os.

Unfortunate as the fact is, when anyone today tells me they are 'christian' my first internal response is: hmmm? I wonder how this person is going to contrive to burn me alive forever in hell?

That is the common synonym of 'christian.'

And we want to put this kind of 'christian activism' into the world?

Uh, no thank you, thank you.

The utter lack of fruit in the churches is as far is it should go.

And thank God that He Alone keeps the EVIL in the hearts of men divided and confused as part of HIS PROMISE.

Perhaps after the fowls of the air finish eating our flesh inside the church we will be better equipped to 'judge.'

1 Corinthians 5:
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Paul knew what would happen 'in the churches' long long before it ever happened.

Paul worked for THREE years warning his flock on this exact matter:

I'd call it 'Paul's worst nightmare' in it's current state:

Acts 20:
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Divine Judgment will start IN THE HOUSE OF GOD precisely for this reason.

I'd think participants in faith have better things to do then to try to bring their deal in it's present form into any kind of 'world' activism.

God save me from your followers would be my prayer.

And many unbelievers are engaged in that same prayer, knowing what the majority of christians have come to be synonymous with. As if any given 'sect' would even have a clue.

The religious right? Let's increase those military expenditures in the name of GOD!

wow

Colossians 3:2
Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

s

 

[Butch5]

I believe that we are on the same general side of the pacifism issue, but I believe that it could be argued that this text forbids vengeance, but not necessarily defence of self and / or defence of country.

ἐκδικέω carries the idea of defending oneself or another.

 

[Butch5]

Well, that is THE WHOLE POINT, is it not? Has Christ's Kingdom somehow changed, and become "of this world"?

What were Christ's words to Peter and to all who know Him only 'after the flesh?' Can any today receive His words?

Matthew 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, put up again thy sword into his place: FOR ALL THEY THAT TAKE THE SWORD SHALL PERISH WITH THE SWORD."

We must admit that Christ did not say to Peter that 'Evil men who take the sword will perish with the sword.' No, Christ was talking to His own leading apostle when he said "ALL who take the sword shall perish with the sword."


There are few indeed who can receive the words Christ gave to Peter. There are few indeed who are willing to follow Christ to the cross and die with Him.

Here are a couple of other sayings of Christ that are hard to receive.

Matthew 5:38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Matthew 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two.
Matthew 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."



Those few who can receive these words will reap great spiritual rewards. They will receive no physical rewards. On the contrary, they are promised:

Matthew 10:22 "And ye shall be hated of ALL MEN for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."


"All Men" does not exclude our nation. We like to think that we are a 'Christian nation.' Yet we have murdered, and continue to kill, millions of our own children in the womb, and we forbid anything that 'HINTS' of Christianity in, or on our national and state properties. And we expect God to go into battle with us? This was the thinking of the fornicating priest-sons of Eli, when they took the ark of God into battle against the Philistines (see 1 Samuel 4) "The glory had departed from Israel" (1 Samuel 4:22).


Do we really believe that simply because we are the world's only super power that 'the glory has not already departed' from us as a nation?

"Do NOT resist evil" has been replaced with "the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Love your enemies has been replaced with "Love your country."


It is in our very nature (carnal) to protect ourselves and others with arms if necessary is certainly a true statement. No one demonstrated this fact any better than Peter. But we are not called to succumb to 'our very nature.' We are called to "overcome" it.



1 Corinthians 2:14 ".....the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him."



Should we fight for our country? The problem for us is the same problem Christ had.

John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world: IF my kingdom were of this world, THEN would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."


Again, is Christ's Kingdom somehow "of this world" now - that we should fight?

Where is OUR CITIZENSHIP? How does Paul feel this way about his earthly citizenship?

Philippians 3:20 "For our conversation [Greek = citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Corinthians 5:20 "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."



Notice what Luke says,

Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve TWO MASTERS: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."


Is this statement simply about money? Of course NOT. It's about ANY "master" (Greek = "Kyrios"). And being servants (Greek = oikétēs = "domestic servants" - i.e. ambassadors) of the Living God, shall we serve TWO MASTERS?


Luke 16:13 "No servant [ambassador] can serve two masters [kingdoms = countries]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."


If Christ had taken the view of today's Christians, He would have said, 'Well, of course my kingdom is not of this world, but that doesn't mean that I am not to do all in my power to keep evil from succeeding.' ;)

Well said!

 

[Drew]

No, Drew. I have not said that Jesus was the king of some "spiritual" realm (although he is, he isn't limited to such).
I'm saying that Jesus is the King of your heart.
He is the King of all creation, all heaven and all earth.

Well, if he is king of all the earth how is Jesus not saying (in John 18:36) that the nature of His kingdom is such as to explain why His followers are not fighting?

I think what Jesus saying is clear: citizens of His "this-worldly" kingdom do not use force.

I am not sure I understand exactly what your position on this whole matter is.

 

[Drew]

ἐκδικέω carries the idea of defending oneself or another.

Fair enough - I will assume that you have done your homework correctly. I think, though, you can understand how, in English at least, the concept "vengeance" is does not overlap with the concept of self-defence.

 

[Sparkey]

Well, if he is king of all the earth how is Jesus not saying (in John 18:36) that the nature of His kingdom is such as to explain why His followers are not fighting?

I think what Jesus saying is clear: citizens of His "this-worldly" kingdom do not use force.

I am not sure I understand exactly what your position on this whole matter is.

He explained when he told Peter to sheath the sword - it was because he had already chosen to drink the cup that His Father had given him, that is, to suffer death.

You seem to think that I'm on the horn of your dilemma. I'm not. I'm not a pacifist; I am a Christian. I don't see the contradiction.

If my neighbor fell victim to a daylight robbery and defended himself (using violence) I would not say that he sinned. If my son enlisted in the Marine Corps, I would have misgivings, but that would be because I grew up in the 60's - not because I don't believe in national defense. I don't have to say "If somebody hit me" because that has in fact happened - and I restrained myself and did not fight even though the attack went on. Afterwards I joined a victim's advocacy panel and worked with families that were court ordered to seek help - it wasn't much, mostly acted as a moderator. I say this because I don't want people to read what I write and think that I'm hawkish politically - I don't believe in violence but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't fight under any circumstance.

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.

 

[Kaliani]

What is the history of Christianity on this planet? Does anyone here want to remember?

I will do the unpleasant task of reminding you. Unlike the scoffers, my intention is not to taunt you. But unlike the devil, I don't want you to forget - EVER - that violence is a slippery moral slope. Even for the best of us.

It just seems to me that Christians should be the ones to voice this cautionary word to the world.

 

[Drew]

Hope that clears things up, Drew.

It doesn't, actually, but that's not necessarily your fault. Perhaps we will return to this, perhaps not.

 

[Drew]

What is the history of Christianity on this planet? Does anyone here want to remember?

I will do the unpleasant task of reminding you. Unlike the scoffers, my intention is not to taunt you. But unlike the devil, I don't want you to forget - EVER - that violence is a slippery moral slope. Even for the best of us.

It just seems to me that Christians should be the ones to voice this cautionary word to the world.

I believe that the early Christians were uniformly pacifistic. That, in and of itself, does not establish that pacificism should characterize Christians, but it is at least interesting.

 

[Drew]

I have pointed out that Jesus explains the non-violence of His followers in terms of their being citizens of a new this-worldly kingdom, inaugurated by Jesus, where violence is not acceptable. I suggest that, as is always the case when I have deployed this argument, there has been basically silence and or evasion from those who would believe that Christians can do what the rest of the world does - use the sword to achieve ends, even arguably desirable ones. I do not see how Jesus' words in John 18:36 can mean anything else. Or to put it another way, if Jesus wanted to promote pacifism on the part of His followers, I cannot think of a clearer way to do this, in the context of the interaction with Pilate, than to say "If my kingdom were "of this world" - like the other kingdoms that have arisen in human history - my followers would fight to free me. But my kingdom is not like these other kingdoms".

Which is basically what He says. And with all due respect, I think that no poster in this thread, who disagrees with the "pacifist" position has dealt with this.

But there's more. The modern church, crippled by its Biblical illiteracy and its Pablem appproach to the Scriptures, misses, among other things, the allusion to Daniel 7 that Jesus confronts Caiaphus with before going to Pilate. It occurs when Jesus tells Caiaphus that he (Caiaphus) will see Jesus as a "son of man" figure coming on the "clouds of heaven". If you actually go to Daniel 7, what do you find: a story about a son of man that does battle with the great beasts and is vindicated by being raised to heaven on the clouds to a position of kingship. What do the beasts represent?

They represent human empires. How is this not a cryptic claim on the part of Jesus that is essentially the same thing he says to Pilate in John 18:36. What is the most fundamental characteristic of the human empires that the 4 beasts represent (Persia, Greece, Syria, Rome, if not others)? It is that they achieve their ends through the use of violent force. I suggest this would be plain to anyone familiar with these empires.

And there is even more. I suggest that Paul (and John) use an image of Jesus being raised on the cross as constitutive of His also being raised to Kingship. If we are really citizens of His kingdom, we should take the point: Citizens of Jesus' Kingdom are to be characterized by a self-sacrficial response to evil, including but not limited to the rejection of the use of force. This is a hard teaching, as hard for me as for the rest, but I cannot see how it is not what we are called to.

At the very least we should recognize that when you have a superpower that achieves its ends at least through the implied threat of violence (by possessing an armed force that utterly dwarfs the 'competition'), this is certainly not in line with Jesus' kingdom principles.

 

[mcgyver]

Well...after a couple of days away, this thread's got my head spinning.

I'm kind of curious about something...

In John 2:14-16, The scripture records that Jesus made a whip or scourge of cords and then [violently] drove the Moneychangers from the temple grounds.

He didn't explain to them why they shouldn't be doing business there, He didn't politely ask them to leave; He physically turned over tables and drove them out.

So then the question must arise: How does one reconcile Jesus' use of violence in cleansing the temple with His [supposed] teaching of pacifism?

Or perhaps we need to clarify what we mean by "pacifism" ?

I'm really interested in seeing the particular hermeneutic used to reconcile this issue....

 

[Potluck]

This is simply a faulty argument although it is used over and over again.

The fact the pacifist may indeed be a member of a country like the United States which, against clear Biblical teaching, uses at least the threat of utter violent destruction to further its interests, is entirely besides the point. The fact that the pacifist might indeed be able to "safely" express his / her view "behind the big guns" provides precisely zero evidence that such a pacifist would change his / her tune if such "guns" were not there.

And although I would prefer Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney, your current President's use of your military to "get things done" is entirely out of line with the gospel way. Do you believe that Jesus would approve of drone strikes that, at times at least, blow innocent people, including children, to bits? And lest ye think I am "bashing America", I have little doubt that my own government would (and does) use the same entirely non-gospel mode of "doing power through the barrel of a gun" as does yours.

And you provide zero evidence that pacifism would or could have assured the survival of Christianity throughout history against the aggressive forces bent on it's destruction. Why do you continually ignore the unsavory fact that Christianity survived through the use of force against the absolute hostility of it's enemies?

Until you can show me where pacifism is capable of turning away the violent hostility to slaughter Christians and eradicate Christianity once and for all your case for pacifism holds no water. The fact remains... Christianity could not have survived if it's followers practiced the pacifism you feel your interpretations demonstrate.

And if you are correct in your arguments then the Christianity we know today is the product of rebellion against Christ for defending itself with the sword. Therefore all churches today claiming Christianity have no roots grounded in truth and Christianity becomes a lie.

 

[Drew]

Well...after a couple of days away, this thread's got my head spinning.

I'm kind of curious about something...

In John 2:14-16, The scripture records that Jesus made a whip or scourge of cords and then [violently] drove the Moneychangers from the temple grounds.

He didn't explain to them why they shouldn't be doing business there, He didn't politely ask them to leave; He physically turned over tables and drove them out.

So then the question must arise: How does one reconcile Jesus' use of violence in cleansing the temple with His [supposed] teaching of pacifism?

I think that the answer is that Jesus' action in temple is intended to be highly symbolic. Through "staging" this admittedly "violent" action, Jesus is intending to send the message that the Israel of His day was about to be judged by God. In order to make this point, Jesus engages in over the top histrionics.

The general point is this: an advocate of pacifism (which I believe Jesus is) can use the form of violence as a symbolic action. Consider the image that Paul uses about the whole military outfit - the breastplate of this, the helmet of that, the sword of something else. I suggest that the last thing Paul wants to do is to communicate that Christians should be militaristic. He is, instead, using this military image as a metaphor for the characteristics that should mark out the Christian.

 

[Drew]

And you provide zero evidence that pacifism would or could have assured the survival of Christianity throughout history against the aggressive forces bent on it's destruction.

I agree: I have indeed provided zero evidence of this. Just as I have provided zero evidence that loving your enemies "works". Your point?

Why do you continually ignore the unsavory fact that Christianity survived through the use of force against the absolute hostility of it's enemies?

Because it is clearly not "a fact", despite your claim. You are speculating when you claim that Christianity would not have survived in the absence of the use of force against enemies.

Until you can show me where pacifism is capable of turning away the violent hostility to slaughter Christians and eradicate Christianity once and for all your case for pacifism holds no water.

No. Jesus instructs us to be pacifists - like others, you simply have no argument that deals with John 18:36. Jesus never promises that we, as individuals will survive. In fact, it seems that we are to expect to be put to death for the Kingdom. Do you think that our "survival" trumps the teaching of Jesus?

The fact remains... Christianity could not have survived if it's followers practiced the pacifism you feel your interpretations demonstrate.

An error of logic - you cannot simply assume Christianity would not have survived had violence not been used.

And if you are correct in your arguments then the Christianity we know today is the product of rebellion against Christ for defending itself with the sword. Therefore all churches today claiming Christianity have no roots grounded in truth and Christianity becomes a lie.

Again, this is simpy not valid reasoning. For me to assert that the church has missed the boat on the pacifism issue does not, of course, mean that Christianity is "a lie".

 

[Potluck]

"You are speculating when you claim that Christianity would not have survived in the absence of the use of force against enemies."

Then you deny history and the furious attacks Christianity withstood.
Did Christianity survive through strong defense or not?

 

[Drew]

"You are speculating when you claim that Christianity would not have survived in the absence of the use of force against enemies."

Then you deny history and the furious attacks Christianity withstood.
Did Christianity survive through strong defense or not?

You are making an error in logic.

Let me try again: The fact that Christians used force against attacks, and that Christianity has survived is not evidence that Christianity would not not have survived under those same attacks if the Christians had not used force.

 

[smaller]

And you provide zero evidence that pacifism would or could have assured the survival of Christianity throughout history against the aggressive forces bent on it's destruction. Why do you continually ignore the unsavory fact that Christianity survived through the use of force against the absolute hostility of it's enemies?

Until you can show me where pacifism is capable of turning away the violent hostility to slaughter Christians and eradicate Christianity once and for all your case for pacifism holds no water. The fact remains... Christianity could not have survived if it's followers practiced the pacifism you feel your interpretations demonstrate.

And if you are correct in your arguments then the Christianity we know today is the product of rebellion against Christ for defending itself with the sword. Therefore all churches today claiming Christianity have no roots grounded in truth and Christianity becomes a lie.

There is no uncertain fact that 'christianity' as we know it today survived in sectarian forms based on severe violence and killing.

The question remains however how 'christian' that really is.

The fact that christianity today in all it's sectarian glory is still based on severe violence is also beyond any dispute.

Believers of every sect do not seek just to kill other believers, but to promote their eternal torture in unending fire.

So the violent intent that the surviving forms of christianity we have are very much associated with continued violence.

And that too is debatable whether it's christian or not.

The notion of 'christian pacifism' is an absolute JOKE of hypocrisy when one considers what christian sects themselves volley back and forth to each others as it is the most violent matter that exists on the face of the planet that continues to be exchanged from one believer to another.

s

 

[mcgyver]

I think that the answer is that Jesus' action in temple is intended to be highly symbolic. Through "staging" this admittedly "violent" action, Jesus is intending to send the message that the Israel of His day was about to be judged by God. In order to make this point, Jesus engages in over the top histrionics.

The general point is this: an advocate of pacifism (which I believe Jesus is) can use the form of violence as a symbolic action. Consider the image that Paul uses about the whole military outfit - the breastplate of this, the helmet of that, the sword of something else. I suggest that the last thing Paul wants to do is to communicate that Christians should be militaristic. He is, instead, using this military image as a metaphor for the characteristics that should mark out the Christian.

Thanks Drew,

However I would submit for consideration that one cannot use violence and be a pacifist...the two are diametrically opposed philosophies.

Also, I do agree with your statement in reference to Paul using the example of a Roman soldier's armor.

Nevertheless, unless Jesus is advocating a "Do as I say, not as I do" approach...there must be some occasions where violence must necessarily be used to accomplish a certain purpose. If this is the case, although we may rightly say that Jesus advocates peace; I don't think we can say that He prohibits the use of force unilaterally (i.e. absolute pacifism).

 

[Drew]

Thanks Drew,

However I would submit for consideration that one cannot use violence and be a pacifist...the two are diametrically opposed philosophies.

I assume you are saying that a "true" pacifist would never use even representations of violence. I am saying that Jesus was "acting" when He cleared the temple and was in no way endorsing the use of violence.

...there must be some occasions where violence must necessarily be used to accomplish a certain purpose.

I doubt it. From the perspectives of His followers, an armed effort to rescue Jesus from certain death would, to them, seem like the very kind occasion that would "justify" the use of force.

And yet they did not use force, and Jesus explains this in terms of their being members of a new kingdom where such force was not a legitimate option:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.â€

 

[Potluck]

You are making an error in logic.

Let me try again: The fact that Christians used force against attacks, and that Christianity has survived is not evidence that Christianity would not not have survived under those same attacks if the Christians had not used force.

What are my chances that I can find powerful enemies whose goal was to eradicate Christianity by the wholesale slaughter of Christians?