Christianity & Pacifism

[Free]

Did Christianity survive through force? It's not a hard question.

Noo.

 

[mcgyver]

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.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you on this. To say that one is "acting" violently without "endorsing" violence is an oxymoron. Jesus used a violent method...

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€

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.

In John 19:12 we see reference to this: From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.â€

Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.â€

Now Pilate himself was on thin ice. His patron Sejanus had been recently executed for the very same charge by Caesar Tiberius, and it was normal operating procedure in this day and age for the followers of one who was executed for sedition to themselves suffer the same punishment (This is important). The only thing that kept Pilate from suffering Sejanus' fate was the fact that he was in Palestine. Nevertheless Pilate was under suspicion and scrutiny, as Sejanus had been a driving force in Pilate's appointment.

All one needs do is look at the purges that occurred after Sejanus' execution to see the fact of the matter.

Now, Jesus is asked by Pilate if He (Jesus) is a king. If Jesus simply tells the truth and says: "Yes" without anything else, then not only will He go to the cross, the Roman authorities will hunt down every one of Jesus' followers they can get their hands on and crucify them also. Within the Roman empire this happened over and over again many times.

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".

Pilate realizes that Jesus is no threat (and that there is no need to hunt down His followers). For all I know, Pilate thinks Jesus delusional...and Pilate tries repeatedly to release Jesus.

We know how it all ends.

The salient point is this: Jesus was protecting His disciples from being crucified as fellow seditionists while at the same time declaring the truth that He is a king. Really didn't have anything to do with pacifism per se.

Now whether you'll accept that or not...either way is OK by me. ;)

 

[Drew]

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

Not sure what your point is. You need to understand the following, it embodies a foundational principle of logic. If you will not accept it, we cannot get anywhere:

You cannot presume what would have happened in alternate history of the world, one where Christians did not use force to resist aggression.

You simply do not know what would happen, precisely because you do not know, for example, what effect such pacifism might have had. Perhaps the aggressors would be "shamed" by such pacifism into not slaughtering all Christians.

In any event, since when is "our survival" the prime consideration?

 

[Sparkey]

Not sure what your point is. You need to understand the following, it embodies a foundational principle of logic. If you will not accept it, we cannot get anywhere:

You cannot presume what would have happened in alternate history of the world, one where Christians did not use force to resist aggression.

You simply do not know what would happen, precisely because you do not know, for example, what effect such pacifism might have had. Perhaps the aggressors would be "shamed" by such pacifism into not slaughtering all Christians.

In any event, since when is "our survival" the prime consideration?

So there should (in your perfect world) have been no opposition to Hitler on the grounds of everbody should be absolute pacifists and conscientious objectors?
The Muslims should have been allowed to take and occupy Jerusalem?
Seems to me that all one would have to do is threaten violence, and the pacifists would have to comply.

Drew, follow your conscience. Send me a big check or I'll threaten you with violence.
Be sure to remember that your survival isn't the prime concern - don't worry about what you will eat or wear. Don't resist me. In fact, in the spirit of "turn your cheek" -- double the amount, take a loan and send twice what you can afford.

Of course, I was only kidding about threatening to threaten you.
Perhaps, after I get your check in the mail, I will be shamed into returning it to you uncashed?
You never know, right?

 

[Drew]

So there should (in your perfect world) have been no opposition to Hitler on the grounds of everbody should be absolute pacifists and conscientious objectors?

I assume by "opposition", you mean armed opposition? If so, and even though I say it grudgingly, I think that the citizen of Jesus' kingdom needs to follow the instructions of our King and reject the use of force. We are not called to survive, we are called to obey our King, and follow His example.

I can imagine that I might be convinced that Jesus' position is not necessarily one of total pacifism, but rather one where one only uses force in a defensive mode, and when absolutely necessary. Let's remember that to operate in the mode that modern superpowers do - using the veiled threat of military force to get their way - is not an example of this arguably legitimate approach to the use of force.

The Muslims should have been allowed to take and occupy Jerusalem? Seems to me that all one would have to do is threaten violence, and the pacifists would have to comply.

Again, we are not called to survive, we are called to obey. And as I have pointed out, you can only speculate as to what would have happened if pacifism had been adopted. Didn't Ghandi successfully get the British out of India through passive resistance?

I realize the "pacifist" line is a hard one, but am I the only one here who is suspicious when people claim to follow King Jesus - one who has defeated the beasts of "empire" (Daniel 7) - and yet want to act like those very beasts that have been defeated? Let me clarify in order to not presume anything: it is one thing to say we need to have some sort of military capability to use as a last resort; It is quite another to, for example, be comfortable with the type of military the US has and how it uses it. I politely suggest we are in denial if we think that the US is not behaving in "empire" mode right now - using force and the veiled threat of force, not as a means of legitimate self-defence, but more as a way of "getting things done". Consider this (from wikipedia):

The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined

Again, I am not intending to imply that you, or others here, support this clearly "over-the-top" spending on the implements of war. But clearly many Christians do. And even if "total pacifism" is not what Jesus intends (I think that is what He intends, but I am open to slightly modifying my position), clearly Jesus does not support the way nations in past, and the present put together and use their military as a way of "doing power", rather than as a means of last resort.

And lest you think this is an "Anti-American" thing, I am pretty confident that if my nation were as large (population-wise) and as rich as yours, we too would fall into the trap of becoming like the beasts of Daniel 7.

 

[Sparkey]

Drew, thanks for being considerate about my feelings, but it isn't necessary.
I do appreciate much about the country that I live in but don't like hurting others.

As far as your statement, "I can imagine that I might be convinced that Jesus' position is not necessarily one of total pacifism, but rather one where one only uses force in a defensive mode, and when absolutely necessary," - I don't think that I hoped for more than that. I agree with the heart of what you're saying and will concede that I can get hung up on the word "pacifist" because of its connotations. Jesus' commands are very clear. I don't think "Love your enemies" means "Kill them like the bugs they are."

 

[mcgyver]

I assume by "opposition", you mean armed opposition? If so, and even though I say it grudgingly, I think that the citizen of Jesus' kingdom needs to follow the instructions of our King and reject the use of force. We are not called to survive, we are called to obey our King, and follow His example.

I can imagine that I might be convinced that Jesus' position is not necessarily one of total pacifism, but rather one where one only uses force in a defensive mode, and when absolutely necessary. Let's remember that to operate in the mode that modern superpowers do - using the veiled threat of military force to get their way - is not an example of this arguably legitimate approach to the use of force.

Good morning Drew!

You brought up a couple of good points that I'd like to discuss further.

In the realm of "Christian pacifism", I think that there needs to be a certain "line drawn" if you will...

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).

Now the "turn the other cheek" passage from Matthew has been quoted, but I submit that (once again going back to the culture of the time) that the issue is not self defense but rather repaying insult with violence.

The Jewish people of this time were many times taking the law into their own hands, as the Sanhedrin was dysfunctional and there was no way that they'd carry their disputes to a Roman magistrate. This would be kind of along the lines of you catching a burglar in the act and then chaining him in your basement for X years because the penalty for burglary is X years in prison. As a result, there were many blood-feuds going on...one man would kill another, then man A's kinsman redeemer would kill man B; man B's kinsman redeemer would then kill man A's kinsman redeemer..and so forth. There are accounts of whole families being wiped out before the feud ended...and they justified their actions by misapplying Levitical law.

Jesus said: "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you..." He then goes on to say that if a man slaps you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. Notice that Jesus did not say: "If a man clubs you in the head or hits you in the stomach".

According to the Mishna (although I forget which "gate" right now), slapping a man open handed was considered a grievous insult requiring payment of a certain amount of money in recompense. To back-hand a man was a greater insult, requiring twice the amount in recompense.

So then, Jesus is prohibiting a violent response for being offered insult...contextually it really doesn't have anything to do with self defense.

Now a case may be made for non-violent or "passive resistance" in Jesus telling people to "go the second mile". This speaks to the people's reaction to a particularly onerous (to them) aspect of Roman law, to wit: Any Roman soldier could compel a non Roman citizen of an occupied country to carry his pack for a certain fixed distance (2 stadia, if I remember correctly). Failure to comply resulted in crucifixion.

Obviously, being a "pack mule" for a Roman soldier would certainly grate upon the Jew.

The question arises then: "Why did Jesus tell them to do that?"

There are a couple of possible answers, perhaps more than one correct:

1. That Jesus was establishing that He was not coming as a conquering Messiah to drive out the Romans. (Big shock to the Zealots in particular).

2. That any rebellion against Rome would (once again) be ruthlessly crushed.

3. That men are to submit to governmental authority (the caveat being insofar as the laws of the government are not in conflict with the law of God).

4. That He was not advocating the overthrow of Rome.

I've got to take a break here, but I would like to tie all this into discussion as to whether a Christian is in fact prohibited from military service in the next couple of posts.

 

[Drew]

Good morning Drew!

You brought up a couple of good points that I'd like to discuss further.

I appreciate that, and acknowledge that there is still a post of yours to which I have not responded (besides the one whose extract appears immediately above).
I hope to get back to you shortly.

 

[Butch5]

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.

Yes, in English it doesn't come across the same way.

 

[Butch5]

So there should (in your perfect world) have been no opposition to Hitler on the grounds of everbody should be absolute pacifists and conscientious objectors?
The Muslims should have been allowed to take and occupy Jerusalem?
Seems to me that all one would have to do is threaten violence, and the pacifists would have to comply.

Drew, follow your conscience. Send me a big check or I'll threaten you with violence.
Be sure to remember that your survival isn't the prime concern - don't worry about what you will eat or wear. Don't resist me. In fact, in the spirit of "turn your cheek" -- double the amount, take a loan and send twice what you can afford.

Of course, I was only kidding about threatening to threaten you.
Perhaps, after I get your check in the mail, I will be shamed into returning it to you uncashed?
You never know, right?

Do you believe Paul when he said that it is God who raises up and puts down kings? Doesn't Scripture say God raised up Pharaoh? Paul said if you resist the powers that be you resist the ordinance of God.

Romans 13:1-2 (KJV)
1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

 

[Sparkey]

Do you believe Paul when he said that it is God who raises up and puts down kings? Doesn't Scripture say God raised up Pharaoh? Paul said if you resist the powers that be you resist the ordinance of God.

Romans 13:1-2 (KJV)
1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Didn't Moses resist Pharaoh?

 

[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 think you are being unrealistic. To follow the line you are taking, anyone who even use images of violence to make a point is thereby disqualified from being considered to be a pacifist. Remember: my argument is that Jesus is doing theater when He clears the temple. With your line of reasoning, one cannot even satirize violence (i.e. represent violence in some sort of "artisitc" setting in order to point out its ultimate futility) without being deemed to be a non-pacifist.

 

[mcgyver]

I think you are being unrealistic. To follow the line you are taking, anyone who even use images of violence to make a point is thereby disqualified from being considered to be a pacifist. Remember: my argument is that Jesus is doing theater when He clears the temple. With your line of reasoning, one cannot even satirize violence (i.e. represent violence in some sort of "artisitc" setting in order to point out its ultimate futility) without being deemed to be a non-pacifist.

I really don't think that I'm being unrealistic here...what may be happening is that we are suffering a language barrier between Canadian and American English (and I say that tongue-in-cheek ).

But seriously, we probably need to quantify and define what we mean by "pacifism".

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds

2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance (emphasis mine).

As a philosophy: the eschewing of violence in any and all forms such as is found in early Buddhist teachings as an example; with Ghandi or Dr. Martin Luther King as contemporary pictures of Pacifists.

Now whether "theater" or not, it can not realistically argued that Jesus in cleansing the temple did not use force. Therefore in the classic sense Jesus was not a "pacifist", nor did He use a "pacifistic" method.

I might also point out that a satire is exactly that: A satire...and a satire is not effective unless those viewing it understand that it is satire.

There was nothing (IMO) "satirical" in driving money lenders and sellers of sacrifice from the one area of the temple complex reserved for; and wherein the Gentiles could approach in order to seek the God of Israel.

Nor do I think that the words: "Zeal for your house has consumed me" (KJV) in reference to fulfillment of the Messianic part of Psalm 69 can be counted as a theatrical device.

From the text of John 2:13-17 we read:

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”

Jesus was angry that the purpose of the Court of the Gentiles had been corrupted and turned from a place set aside for Gentiles to seek God into a place to make money, and He took direct and forceful action to correct it.

In fact, I would think that this action would be entirely contrary to the idea of absolute pacifism...

So then, what is your definition or use of the word "pacifist" in connection to Jesus?

 

[Sparkey]

"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up."" - John 2:13-17 NKJV

The fact that Jesus took the time to make the whip and then re-entered the Temple and drove them (the money changers) along with the sheep and oxen out shows that he had thought it out. Jesus wasn't being a reactionary but to say that there was no violence whatsoever under any circumstance isn't right either.

The disciples recalled Psalm 69 and understood that he was motivated by his zeal for the House of God. Jesus wasn't being clever or crafty; He was zealous for the House of God. No guile was found in his mouth.

 

[mcgyver]

Along with this, and running full circle...if Jesus taught pacifism...more specifically a prohibition against military service why don't we see it clearly proclaimed in the following examples?

1. John the Baptist speaking in Luke 3: Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”

If we accept that John was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (for it is written: He [John the Baptist] will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.), why didn't he use this opportunity to clearly declare that the soldiers must leave the service?

2. When Jesus healed the Centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13, why didn't Jesus tell him to stop being a soldier? Instead he commended the Centurion:

When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour.

Why did Jesus tell him to "Go your way" instead of "Change your profession"?

3. Cornelius the Centurion is recorded in Acts 10:1-3 in the following wise:

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.

Acts 10:30-31
So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God.

When he is converted at the word of Peter, there is no mention of Cornelius having to leave the Roman army...simply: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

So then the question must arise: If a Christian is to be a pacifist and eschew (as it were) military service, why is this not clearly and unambiguously proclaimed (especially in these examples) so that we, God's people would not have to guess, or wonder, or argue about it?

Let's carry this one step further...if a Christian is to be a pacifist, why don't we include those in Law Enforcement?

They use violence on a daily basis, whether wrestling a suspect to the ground or discharging a weapon.

I would entertain the argument that a Christian is to pursue the path of peace, but that there are times when one must "take up the sword"...but I just can't see from the whole counsel of the Word of God where a Christian is to completely reject the use of force in any and all circumstances.

 

[Drew]

The fact that Jesus took the time to make the whip and then re-entered the Temple and drove them (the money changers) along with the sheep and oxen out shows that he had thought it out. Jesus wasn't being a reactionary but to say that there was no violence whatsoever under any circumstance isn't right either.

The disciples recalled Psalm 69 and understood that he was motivated by his zeal for the House of God. Jesus wasn't being clever or crafty; He was zealous for the House of God. No guile was found in his mouth.

1. As per what I said to McGyver, I believe that a person who is, in any reasonable sense a "pacifist" can indeed engage in theatrical demonstrations that involve portrayals of violence without thereby compromising their pacifist position;

2. You cannot merely assert that Jesus was not "being crafty" or, to use my words "doing theater" when He drove the people out of the Temple. To be fair, I have also merely asserted my position. We both need to make arguments to support our positions. Now I concede that you have at least begun to do so, citing Psalm 69. Fair enough. But I believe that Psalm 69 can also be integrated with my position as well - I can argue that it was precisely because of His zeal for the Temple that Jesus was motivated to go there and symbolically act out the imminent divine condemnation of the leadership of Israel who were essentially misusing the Temple. And, as I think you would have to agree, the fact that Rome came along in 70 AD and destroyed the Temple could, repeat could, be understood as the fulfillment of that judgement.

 

[Butch5]

Didn't Moses resist Pharaoh?

What does Moses have to do with what Paul said? Is Paul correct or incorrect? Moses was under the old covenant, a covenant for a physical nation. Christ's kingdom is not a physical nation, it has no boundaries the need to be protected. In the end, if Paul is correct, then those who oppose the governments of this world are opposing God.

 

[mcgyver]

What does Moses have to do with what Paul said? Is Paul correct or incorrect? Moses was under the old covenant, a covenant for a physical nation. Christ's kingdom is not a physical nation, it has no boundaries the need to be protected. In the end, if Paul is correct, then those who oppose the governments of this world are opposing God.

Just a question...for I see a conundrum between this and what you've posted earlier...

If one lives in a country (say, Israel for example) who's government requires compulsory military service, and one refuses that compulsory service and in doing so opposes their government...are they opposing God in their refusal to serve?

 

[Butch5]

Just a question...for I see a conundrum between this and what you've posted earlier...

If one lives in a country (say, Israel for example) who's government requires compulsory military service, and one refuses that compulsory service and in doing so opposes their government...are they opposing God in their refusal to serve?

Not at all. Christians are to follow the commands of Christ first and foremost. If secular governments require citizens to disobey the commands of Christ the governments are in opposition to God. Just because God establishes governments doesn't necessarily mean that those governments will conduct themselves according to His commands. Actually, we see the opposite.

 

[mcgyver]

Not at all. Christians are to follow the commands of Christ first and foremost. If secular governments require citizens to disobey the commands of Christ the governments are in opposition to God. Just because God establishes governments doesn't necessarily mean that those governments will conduct themselves according to His commands. Actually, we see the opposite.

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree here 100%.

I just got a bit confused over your reply to Sparrowhawke.