Pacifism

[Guest]

Just a thought regarding pacifism:

Jesus commended the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 for having more faith than anyone in Israel and never once asked him to step down from being a soldier. However, Jesus did ask Zacheus to stop being a tax collector and the women at the well to stop committing adultery. It would seem that he would have also asked the Centurion to step down if being a solider is wrong.

Also Paul came in contact with multiple soldiers and even led many to Christ but he never once asked them to stop being soldiers. He also used the solider as an analogy for the Christian life in Ephesians 6:10-19. It would seem that if being a solider is a sin it would be a bad illustration. You would not see any other sinful practices (such as adultery) being used as an illustration for living the Christian life.

[_Steve]

Hi John,

The things that were taught to believing soldiers in the process of their being discipled in their new faith are not recorded for us. This is not surprising. Actually, the encounters that are recorded between Jesus and any individuals are usually preserved with a minimum of detail. While we do read of Jesus telling the woman taken in adultery to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11), we do not read of His telling the woman at the well to stop living with her boyfriend (John 4). This omission does not mean that He never addressed the subject with her. He may have done so, (albeit off-the-record.), or He may merely have believed that, given her new commitment to Christ, she would naturally find her living situation to be sinful and would voluntarily abandon it for something more consistent with her love for Christ.

When the sinful woman washed Jesus' feet with her tears in the house of Simon the Pharisee, we do not read that Jesus told her to abandon her prostitution (Luke 7:37-50), nor that Philip ever told Simon Magus to stop practicing sorcery (Acts 8). We must assume that these people either knew instinctively, after conversion, that their activities were inconsistent with discipleship, or that they were instructed in these matters subsequent to their professions of faith, but in communication that was not recorded for us. The truth is, we are told very little about the specific content of the moral instruction given to any of the early believers, other than those of the close circle of Jesus' disciples. Therefore, if the soldiers had in fact been instructed to leave their soldiery, we might reasonably expect that it would not necessarily be recorded.

Zacchaeus was not told (so far as we know) to abandon the trade of tax-collecting. He realized immediately, upon meeting Jesus, that, if he was to continue in that occupation, he was going to have to modify his practices and become honest (Luke 19:8). This may have been the attitude of the early Christians toward government work, in general, and even soldiery. When a government official, like Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:6ff), came to faith, it is possible that the assumption prevailed that he could remain in office, so long as he conducted himself according to Christian principles of justice and integrity. On the other hand, such men may have been instructed to leave office, for all we know. There is no record of the process of discipleship to which these converts were subjected.

The fact that there are military metaphors used in the New Testament does not, in itself, tell us much about the apostles' assessment of a believer's choosing a vocation in the military. Paul sometimes compared the attitude of the Christian, in his calling, to the attitude of those in secular vocations, in their pursuits, just as some preachers have compared the Christian's necessary zeal to be comparable to that of Communist radicals who forsook all for their cause, without suggesting that there could be any overlap between the ranks of Christians and Communists.

For example, the attitude of athletes became a model to the Christian in the running of the good race (1 Cor.9:24-27/ 2 Tim.2:5). This does not mean that Paul, or any Christian, would have approved of Christians participating in the Olympic games, wherein the runners, for example, swore oaths of allegiance to the emperor and ran in the nude. Paul draws a stark contrast between the motives of the Christian and that of the Olympic athletes (as if he did not assume there to be any overlap of the two categories): "They do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we [run our race] for an imperishable crown" (1 Cor.9:25).

Likewise, there are parallels in the attitude of a soldier and that of a Christian (2 Tim.2:3-4), but the comparison of the Christian life to the vocation of a secular warrior does not necessarily speak of approval of that secular vocation for Christians. In fact, in the one place where Paul makes the greatest use of the military metaphor, he begins by clarifying that, "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood" (Eph.6:12). Elsewhere, he clarifies that "the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly..."(2 Cor.10:4). There are indeed many things about the Christian life that resemble warfare, but it is made clear that it is a warfare conducted with non-physical weapons, and only against non-physical adversaries.

The question of the appropriateness of Christians serving as combatants in physical warfare does not seem to have been as controversial for the first three Christian centuries, as it is in modern times. The church fathers, prior to Constantine, believed that military involvement was not consistent with a Christian's special calling as a soldier of Christ against the powers of darkness. Whether they were right in this assessment, or wrong, must be determined by careful exegesis of the relevant texts of scripture. I appreciate your introducing some such texts. In my opinion, though, we need to find some passages that deal more directly with the topic than simply the anecdotal accounts of the conversions of military officers in the Gospels and Acts.

Blessings!

[Guest]

Dear John and Steve,
In my mind Romans 13 is a passage that would seem to address this. The government is of divine origin, God's servant to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer. People, as agents of government, carry out punishment that no one acting individually is allowed, either by God or the government, to inflict.

This being so It would seem the same principle would apply to offenders whether they be individuals, nations, or groups such as terrorists. The question then to me would be can a Christian be "God's servant" in this matter or can only unbelievers perform this function? That Christians can't would seem to be an almost incongrous position.

It would also seem that something so important would be clearly forbidden if wrong.

Perhaps an even bigger question is can a Christian do anything as an agent of the government or an employer that we can not do as an individual? Could a Christian, as an agent of the Government, take the home of a poor person who could not pay property taxes? If you worked for a bank could you foreclose on a loan?

I have long felt I could not be a landlord because I would simply have to accept anyone's story why they could not pay rent and would soon be destitute myself. But there are Christians I hear of who hire a firm to collect rent and manage the property for them and evict none payers.
The sin, if any, is done by a proxy. Do "sinners" defend and fight for us by proxy?

On the other hand I believe we must give great weight to the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians. They were much closer to first hand knowledge of the apostle's teaching than we are.

A relative of mine served in the Korean war. The church he was a member of was pacifist. The solution for him was non-combat duty, serving on the battlefield picking up the dead, a very stressful chore, and subject to the same danger as those who fought.

This is obviously not an easy subject; any comments would be of interest.

Yours in Christ, Homer

[Guest]

Steve,

As always I thank you for your thorough response. It seemed after reading your article “Should believers use forcible resistance” that you would agree that police may use force even lethal force to protect the innocent. In this line of thinking can a Christian be part of the police.

If a Christian can be a policeman how is that different that a soldier who also protects innocent lives by using lethal force?

I also have a few more questions:
• In your article you said that it is biblical for a government to carry out capital punishment, under the government’s authority should a Christian be that executioner?

• If someone is trying to rape or kill your wife or child is it permissible as a Christian to use force to stop the rapist or murderer?

• If as a Christian we do not protect the innocent how does that show brotherly love to the victim?


I realize I have not yet made my case based on scripture; I have read the arguments for both sides and understand scripture is used to support both sides. I greatly appreciate your input and respect your wisdom.

God Bless,
John

[Guest]

Dear John,

I recently heard Steve's opinion on some of the questions that you have raised. I don't wish to steal Steve's thunder, so please listen to:

Life of Christ Volume 3 Tape 6 Side B.

You can download the MP3 at:

http://www.thenarrowpath.com/life_of_christ.html

[_Steve]

Hi John,

In your most recent post, you posed the following questions:

• In your article you said that it is biblical for a government to carry out capital punishment, under the government’s authority should a Christian be that executioner?

• If someone is trying to rape or kill your wife or child is it permissible as a Christian to use force to stop the rapist or murderer?

• If as a Christian we do not protect the innocent how does that show brotherly love to the victim?

I felt that I had answered the second and third of these questions in my article, to which you alluded. I don't have any additional insights into those two points, other than what I wrote there. However, I might not have answered the first question adequately in the article.

The role of the Christian in the governance of the secular State is a highly debatable matter. Generally, the church fathers saw the administration of justice as a matter given to secular officials, and not to Christians. However, the fathers may not have been representing the earliest apostolic position, for all we know.

The case of Sergius Paulus, in Acts 13, shows that there were occasionally government officials who became believers (just as the case of Cornelius shows that military officials sometimes became believers). As I stated in my post above, we have no record of the subsequent Christian lives of either of these men, and, for all we know, they may have remained at their posts after beling converted (or they might not have).

The modern age has introduced new opportunities for Christians to enter the political sphere, where they may hope to effect changes for good in the secular society. Because this opportunity now exists, many Christians feel that it is our duty to steward this freedom by co-opting political power. I have addressed this in another post in this forum (see my response to "Anon" under: "Should Christians Participate in Politics?").

Whether the political realm is or is not an appropriate sphere for Christian activity, it seems clear that the Christian cannot hold any position in government (or in any other occupation) which requires him to act contrary to the teachings of Christ. It may be all right for the government to do things, as God's agent of wrath (Rom.13), which it is not the place of Christians, God's agents of mercy, to perform.

This is illustrated in Jesus' comment to the man who wished for Him to adjudicate a probate settlement--probably a just cause. Jesus declined to get involved, and said, "Man, who made me a judge or an arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:14). Jesus was not, so far as I can discern, saying that there was no legitimate place in secular society for judges who handle such cases, but only that this was a different sphere from that to which He was called.

Even this fact can be taken two ways.

On the one hand, one may wish to say that it was Jesus' personal calling as the sacrificial Lamb of God, at that time, that made it inappropriate for Him to meddle in matters of law enforcement, but that some Christians, since that time, may be called into that field because their life work is not identical to Christ's.

On the other hand, one might see His statement as differentiating between two legitimate spheres, contrasting the calling of the State with that of the citizens of the Kingdom of God--as He did when speaking to Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight..." (John 18:36).

If Jesus felt there to be an unbridgable gap between the vocation of the State and the vocation of the Kingdom's citizenry, who are "strangers and pilgrims" and "ambassadors" in this world, then that would explain why He taught that Christians, rather than using the courts at all, should simply endure injustice against themselves (Matt.5:40/ Luke 12:15/ 1 Cor.6:6-7/ James 2:6; 5:6), in order to keep themselves "unspotted by the world" (James 1:27).

On this view, the Christian is called to be much more "otherworldly" than is commonly thought in Western Christianity, and is to be occupied primarily with things of eternal consequence, rather than temporal things of earthly governments.

Some may feel that this view ignores the important teachings of both Testaments, wherein God expresses the godly man's duty to be concerned about social justice and the vindication of the oppressed. But such concern does not necessarily have to include our entering the realm of enforcement.

There are two ways in which the early Christians, without becoming involved in Roman politics, brought about changes in Roman society: First, by living out the principles of social justice and compassion among themselves in their own countercultural community (Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-35); and second, (using the first as their platform of credibility--something the modern church has, to a large extent, lost), by speaking prophetically to the pagan rulers and society (e.g., Acts 24:25-26).

The story of the Christian monk Telemachus, who jumped into the arena, protesting the gladiatorial games in the name of Christ, and who was killed by the gladiators, but whose death brought a permanent cessation of all such entertainment in Rome, is an example of how the early Christians changed secular society without wielding political power or stepping outside their proper sphere of activity.

Today Christians choose political action to bring about social change, not because it is a more effective means (it is not), or because it better preserves our Christian testimony (it does not), but because we have lost our moral platform through our own compromises, and have little left in the way of prophetic credibility. Also, it is easier for us to join a political action group, or to run for office, than to die as martyrs, even though the latter course has historically made the greater impact (Rev.12:11).

Different Christians have seen this matter differently, and it would be overly-simplistic to suggest that the Bible speaks unambiguously about such things. In a day when the emperors beheaded some Christians (like Paul), I think that no Christian would wish to be in the position of an executioner. Imagine, if Paul's executioner were to become a convert the day before Paul was to be brought to him. Would you not think that he would feel compelled to quit his post before having to execute the innocent apostle?

Paul was a duly condemned "criminal," according to the decision of Nero's justice system, and thus, "worthy of death," by legal definitions (just as Jesus was, by Pilate). We may feel confident that those who are executed in our legal system are more deserving of death than were many of Nero's convicts, but that is by no means always certain, and the executioner is not permitted to decide which prisoners he will execute, and which he will not. Because of this, and other considerations, I would have a very hard time seeing the role of executioner as being an appropriate occupation for a believer.

[Guest]

Steve thank you for the pointer.

seem topical to add....

Wow, that one verse. From King James Version:
12:14
And he said unto him, Man who made me a judge or a divider over you?

You mentioned two options:
a: personal calling, the sacrificial lamb
b: dividing the spiritual sphere from the civil sphere

I like to read these things myself, it refreshes me, many places I have not looked at closely, as I would want to. So when I read it first as I do; I read just it, sometimes just a single word changes everything. Other times, most times quotes check out - nothing wrong here. As to the question of what this says, sometime I need more, so, usually I start at the chapter beginning.

Reading from the beginning of the chapter; Jesus, first warn his disciples, of the hypocrisies of the Pharisees. He declares that their secrets are not secret to him; 'words spoken in darkness shall be spoken in the light. Further he advises his followers not to worry about the ones that can kill you body.

Then Jesus 'forewarns' them of who they should fear; 'fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell'. The accounting the listeners are told is exacting to the numbers of hairs upon our head. If we confess Christ in our lives, 'the son of man' shall confess before heaven; but, do other, and expect other. And while speaking a word against the 'son of man' would be forgiven. Do not speak against the holy ghost, as that will not be forgiven.

This was much as I recalled it, though as we approach the verse mention, regards pacifism, I held your two optional reading in my thoughts, and read, if one is call before the government authorities, Jesus tells us not to think of what we will say or how we should answer. The holy ghost will instruct the Christian in that hour what to say.

Then one from the 'company' as you said, as Jesus to intercede on his behalf. The question is made to the Master, and only concerns 'things of this world'. Jesus, ask; "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?" Continuing to read: verse 15; And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. Jesus continues with parables.

In this passage Steve, I think a third option presents itself that of Jesus speaking as 'the son of man'. When looked at in this context, his question has only one answer; the father, the same who can kill and then cast into hell. If that is true, then this chapter doesn't tell one which job to get, the son of man has no interest in jobs. Are you worry about those that can kill only your body? This chapter presents, not a blueprint for living life, but living a life that aways puts Jesus first. Less is less.

I feel that there is only one dominion to which we can serve, if we do otherwise neither will be served well enough to satisfy either. How could you serve this country or that country, swear oaths to protect it. Jesus warns us the cost of loving our children or parent more than him - how much less is a country.

We have within us the potential to be for God, just as we are all of him.

Sincerely
Steven Maurice