Jesus on Non-Violence

[Stormcrow]

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."

[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]

There is nothing here that disqualifies Franklin from being a Christian. As to Christ's divinity, he simply didn't know but wasn't dogmatic about it one way or another. He firmly believed he would soon be in heaven with the Father, and the source of any disagreement he may have had with Whitfield may have been on one or two points of doctrine.

If that disqualifies Franklin, everyone who has ever argued on a web forum like this will burn in hell, myself included.

 

[Stormcrow]

This "lie" was sent as a punishment to Christians by God.

God sent the HS to lead us into all truth, not punish us with lies. What you wrote, cited above, is so demonstrably false it's absolutely heretical.

 

[Butch5]

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."

[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]

There is nothing here that disqualifies Franklin from being a Christian. As to Christ's divinity, he simply didn't know but wasn't dogmatic about it one way or another. He firmly believed he would soon be in heaven with the Father, and the source of any disagreement he may have had with Whitfield may have been on one or two points of doctrine.

If that disqualifies Franklin, everyone who has ever argued on a web forum like this will burn in hell, myself included.

Yes, this letter shows that he was a Deist. I stated that. He said he had his doubts about Christ's divinity. That is the very heart of being a Christian. Jesus said, but who do you say that I am? Peter replied, "thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God. To which Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church. Peter was acknowledging Psalm 2

KJV Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? {rage: or, tumultuously assemble} {imagine: Heb. meditate}
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. {vex: or, trouble}
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. {set: Heb. anointed} {upon...: Heb. upon Zion, the hill of my holiness}
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. {the decree: or, for a decree}
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Psa 2:1-12 KJV)

The very foundation of Christianity is "thou art the Christ the Son of the living God."

 

[Drew]

I knew a guy who had an Amish friend. One day, the Amish kid needed to contact home from town but was not allowed to use the pay phone because the Amish of that time and area were enjoined from using any modern technology by their beliefs.

To this Amish kid, the use of modern, worldly technology was a sin.

He had no problem, however, asking this guy I knew to place the phone call for him, because while the Amish believed the use of technology was a sin, they had no problem asking others to do their sinning for them.

Such is the hypocrisy of pacifism, too.

Simply untrue, as already pointed out.

Not a valid objection, although one we often hear. It is simply incorrect logic to argue that because the pacifist is arguably "protected" by the armed forces that the pacifist thinks should be dismantled, that the pacifist is thereby a hypocrite or is being inconsistent.

The pacficist can legitimately respond that he (or she) is entirely willing to live with the consequences of pacifism. So I do not see your argument about how pacifism is " an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists".

In any event, the case can be advanced that while there is short-term "safety" for the pacifist in having a military to protect him or her, the long-term interests of the pacifist (and everyone else for that matter) are indeed best served by the pacifist approach. And the reason is quite simple to understand: While the use of military power may, in the short term, provide survival value, it is entirely possible that its use only re-enforces and entrenches the sad, endless, cross-generational cycle of violence be-getting more violence.

Yes, blasting the Afghans to kingdom come may indeed secure the short-term security of your country, but it only gives rise to a new generation of angry young men.

And so the sad cycle continues.

Now: What is your response?

 

[Tri Unity]

Yes, blasting the Afghans to kingdom come may indeed secure the short-term security of your country, but it only gives rise to a new generation of angry young men.

This is such a sad morbid cycle of endless violence. This is what we are to expect in the last days though; the rider on the red horse takes "peace away from the earth"...

This is what we see happening.

 

[Drew]

Are we in a position to fight to keep Christ from going to the cross???

Not sure what your point is.

I am arguing that the very explanation that Jesus gives for his disciple's refusal to try to free Him from by force has nothing to do with the matter of Jesus going to the cross.

Jesus tells us why they are not fighting - it is because they are citizens of a new kingdom. I suggest that Jesus knew that future generations would want to "explain away" the pacifism exhibited by His followers by making it a "special case" - Jesus has to go to the cross so we cannot have His followers using force to prevent that. But Jesus removes that "out" - He tells us something with strong general implications: it is in the nature of citizenship in the new kingdom that violence is rejected.

 

[Drew]

Did Jesus ask the Centurion to leave Rome's army before promising to heal his daughter?

In many cases (most probably) we have no evidence whatsoever from the scriptures that Jesus insisted that a person be entirely "right before God before Jesus would heal that person.

So the fact that Jesus does not rebuke the centurion for his participation in the military is not evidence that Jesus thought it was OK for this guy to be a soldier.

 

[Butch5]

In many cases (most probably) we have no evidence whatsoever from the scriptures that Jesus insisted that a person be entirely "right before God before Jesus would heal that person.

So the fact that Jesus does not rebuke the centurion for his participation in the military is not evidence that Jesus thought it was OK for this guy to be a soldier.

That's correct. The arugment from silence is fallacious. Just because the Scriptures don't state something doesn't mean it wasn't said. John said that if all the things Jesus said and did were recorded he supposed the world could not contain the books that would be written.

 

[Drew]

Would Jesus require me to stand idly by and pray while a woman was raped or a man robbed? Would you?

"Lord, send this woman being raped help in her moment of desperate need!"
"Son, why do you think I put you right there at that place and moment in time?"

This scenario gets raised a lot. I concede that I am not entirely what the right thing to do is in such a scenario. However, like others, you misrepresent my position when you add this "do nothing" bit. It is clear that there are other options besides "do nothing" and "use force".

In any event, I suggest you are appealing to "instinct" here - obviously every reader (myself included) will feel a strong inclination to use force in such a scenario. Well that may be the right thing to do and it may not. One thing should be clear: what "seems right" is not always the right thing to do. In any event, I will agree that it is certainly at least debatable as to whether force is "justifiable" in such a scenario.

What is more clear, I suggest, is the incompatibility of the kingdom way with a thing as exagerated militarism (which you see in the US and other countries). The US military, simply as an example, is, whether you will admit this or not, used as a kind of "big stick" that functions to project American power and cow others. That, I think, is not something of which Jesus would approve. And I think the same thing could be said about gun culture - it is clear that some people have a decidedly unhealthy attraction to guns, seeing them as a way to appropriate power.

So this is a complex matter. But, on the whole, I think it is clear that we could do with a lot less use of force or, perhaps more importantly, a lot less implied threat of force in our world. But I do concede that the "what would you do if someone was being raped" scenario is a lot more difficult.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

How do you support the claim that I have bolded and underlined?

I believe the remainder of my post explained that: The violence, injuries and death caused by so-called "non-violence" are the direct result of the "non-violent' tacticians clogging traffic, denying access to public buildings or venues, disrupting classes or business, etc., to the point that to let them remain where they have chosen to sit or lie down forces the authorities to remove them by whatever means necessary.

More specifically, how can you possibly know this, precisely because we basically have no data - there has been, I suggest, no sustained human effort to use the pacifist strategy. So I am not sure how you can draw your conclusion.

On the contrary, we have ample evidence and data. Every time a supposedly non-violent protest breaks out, authorities are forced to deal with the passive resistance offered by the protestors. Witness the "Occupy Movement" and the recent violence that resulted from their illegal occupation of public parks, building exteriors and monuments. They claim the authorities became physical with them "for no reason." However, the reason was very clear: They could not be allowed to remain in the path of traffic, legitimate government business or public commerce, nor could they be allowed to remain encamped in parks that were not built to handle the refuse and garbage generated by a small army. They refused to leave, they were breaking the law in that refusal, and they had to be removed. The injuries that resulted are not the fault of the authorities taking action and who by law and direct order were required to remove them, the injuries were the result of the protestors' refusal.

Let me re-state something I stated before: It may well be true that, in the short term, pacifism means more loss of "innocent" life. But it is at least plausible that the benefits of pacifism are realized only over the long term - as the cycle of generational "your country killed my parents, so I will take arms against you" patter of violence is broken.

Then it isn't pacifism at all, as I've already pointed out. If "pacifists" are prepared to accept the loss of life or injury to innocents, they have forfeited the legitimate use of the term and title.

 

[Drew]

I believe the remainder of my post explained that: The violence, injuries and death caused by so-called "non-violence" are the direct result of the "non-violent' tacticians clogging traffic, denying access to public buildings or venues, disrupting classes or business, etc., to the point that to let them remain where they have chosen to sit or lie down forces the authorities to remove them by whatever means necessary.

This does not make your case, precisely because you are not addressing the big picture. More specifically, how, exactly do you know that such protests have not raised social awareness to the point that public policy has been influenced and nations have acted less violently?

You simply cannot focus in on one part of what is a broad, complex problem. As I have already argued, even if there are short-term negative consequences to "pacifism" - in terms of lives being lost that would otherwise not be lost - you need to deal with the possibility that the long term benefits of pacifism - such as the breaking of cross-generational cycle of violence - do not more than offset such losses.

 

[Drew]

On the contrary, we have ample evidence and data....

This is not the point, as per my previous post. Yes, there may well be evidence that some peace protests disrupt lives, and even cost lives. But that is not the big picture - you need to deal with the possibility that such protests have changed "hearts and minds" and have lead, or will lead, to a better long term future.

 

[Drew]

Then it isn't pacifism at all, as I've already pointed out. If "pacifists" are prepared to accept the loss of life or injury to innocents, they have forfeited the legitimate use of the term and title.

You have not addressed my argument. While it may indeed be true that some pacifists are hypocrites, that is no argument against the underlying concept.

I am sure that some men who advocated for women's rights beat their wives. Does that mean that the concept of rights for women is not worth pursuing?

 

[whitestone]

You apply this question to very broad terms. But you negate the fact that the Lord commanded us into armed conflict when we first took possession of the Land, and that He was with us every step of the way. The only difference between that and what you are talking about now is that we had the pillar back then... and we do not have it now! Why don't we have the pillar with us now? Because we are in exile due to our disobedience to the Covenant.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say you cannot defend yourself or your possessions. The commandment is not to murder, but the Church has twisted that into the all-encompassing "kill."

We do not have the right (nor should we involve ourselves) in violence of any sort against the government, for the actions of our government is the righteous judgment of the Almighty. As a nation, we have scorned the commandments of our God, and thus we are getting exactly what we deserve. Yes, we DESERVE Obama and his wretched "czars!"

Beautifully stated!



.

 

[jasoncran]

drew he has a point. i know that the police and national guard will use force on these protestors. a sit in will wind up with injuries. if i taze you will standing and you fall and crack your skull on the ground and die. whose fault is it?

your missing the point. the ows are in violation of the law. the tea party when they protested they did that werent in violation of the constution. the right to assemble to peacefully is never denied but when you block roads, mess parks up to the point that diseases may spread or people cant work. you are in violation of the law.

 

[Drew]

I'm all for encouraging my nation to adopt pacifism, that's why I'm here talking to Christians, that's why I teach about the early church. However, America is "NOT" my nation. My nation in God's kingdom. I do not have dual citizenship. I am all on board with Jesus.

This argument does not really work. Yes, our primary citizenship is in the kingdom. But we live in the "real" world, and I believe my point remains: It simply does not make sense to "keep the kingdom to yourself" - to withdraw from efforts to change the very structures that run this world for the better. I cannot emphasize enough how decidedly odd this is - you claim to have access to "kingdom of God" principles that, if applied, will make the world a much better place.

Yet you simply refuse to participate in efforts to apply these principles in the broader world!

Surely you realize how an "objective" reader will be puzzled by this.

How do you explain your position?

 

[Drew]

All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke

True statement.

But obviously not one that in any way challenges the pacifisit position for the exceedingly obvious reason that we are not limited to only these two options: (1) using force; (2) doing nothing.

Pacifism is a view of the world which requires others to pay any price necessary to maintain the pacifist's sense of moral purity.

Not so, for reasons already provided in at least two posts.

 

[Sinthesis]

I have repeatedly presented this bit of dialogue between Jesus and Pilate when the issue of "Christians and the use of force" comes up:

Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “ Are You the King of the Jews?†34 Jesus answered, “Are you saying this [j]on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?†35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?†36 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€

Now: I believe no one has ever responded to what I see as the clear implication of Jesus' statement at the end: it is in the nature of being citizens of the Kingdom of God that the use of force is rejected.

Which kingdom, exactly, do those of you who think Christians can participate in armed activity claim citizenship?

I don't believe you've correctly derived the actual teaching Jesus gives here. It 's not about the merits of non-violence vs violence, but rather the ethical obligation to fight for the innocent. To "fight" in this context means to stand up for or defend. The term does not require violence, but neither does it exclude violence. Because Christianity at the time of this conversation was still in the future, Jesus as yet had no good and faithful servants to stand up for the just, which in this particular instance was Christ Himself.

 

[Drew]

I don't believe you've correctly derived the actual teaching Jesus gives here. It 's not about the merits of non-violence vs violence, but rather the ethical obligation to fight for the innocent. To "fight" in this context means to stand up for or defend. The term does not require violence, but neither does it exclude violence.

I doubt it. Are you asking us to believe that when Jesus refers his disciples not fighting, He is not referring to armed action? That seems rather unlikely - what other mode of "fighting" would stand a chance at releasing Jesus on eve of His crucifixion.

Besides, the entire setting strongly suggests that violent action is what Jesus is talking about. Remember - He is facing off with Pilate, the representative of Rome. The interaction between Jesus and Pilate is largely about the exercise of power. This is clear from Jesus' invocation of Daniel 7 and its images of vicious beasts. Rome, and all the other beasts of that time, achieved their ends through armed might.

So all things considered, I think it is quite clear that Jesus is indeed talking about "fighting" in the sense of the use of armed means to achieve ends. Agreed, the term "fighting" by itself need not necessarily denote armed activity. But in the broader context of the interaction between Pilate and Jesus, I suggest that "armed force" is indeed what is on Jesus' mind.

 

[Butch5]

[/FONT]
This argument does not really work. Yes, our primary citizenship is in the kingdom. But we live in the "real" world, and I believe my point remains: It simply does not make sense to "keep the kingdom to yourself" - to withdraw from efforts to change the very structures that run this world for the better. I cannot emphasize enough how decidedly odd this is - you claim to have access to "kingdom of God" principles that, if applied, will make the world a much better place.

Yet you simply refuse to participate in efforts to apply these principles in the broader world!

Surely you realize how an "objective" reader will be puzzled by this.

How do you explain your position?

Come on Drew, I've made it clear that we are to interact with people. We are to teach godly principles. However, we are not to do it through governments. I've given ample evidence supporting this. I pointed out that the early church didn't participate in governments yet they changed the world.

You've not yet answered my question regarding 2 Corinthians. How do you work side by side with unbelievers towards the same laws and goals for government and not be unequally yoked?

Can you show me one government in the world that is not corrupt? If not how do you participate in a corrupt government no matter what you goals? If you participate in government then you are fascilitating the advancement of that government. That includes its good goals and its bad. You cannot claim one and not the other.