Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[steve7150]

If she's a Christian, she should go and visit the man. Offer forgiveness... and help. She should also teach her children that despite what they were forced to witness, violence is not the 'kingdom' answer to violence. Her actions were part of a fallen world.








Certainly all true but as a mother she has an obligation and IMHO a biblical duty to protect her children from imminent harm and even though violence is not part of the kingdom of God , we all know this kingdom is not established yet on this earth so there are those times when we have to weigh the importance of conflicting decision making consequences.

[mattrose]

Certainly all true but as a mother she has an obligation and IMHO a biblical duty to protect her children from imminent harm and even though violence is not part of the kingdom of God , we all know this kingdom is not established yet on this earth so there are those times when we have to weigh the importance of conflicting decision making consequences.

Yep, which is basically what I said in the paragraph right before the one you quoted

[Homer]

Good answers to a troubling question.

[psimmond]

It seems all on this thread want the protection offered by the men and women who are paid to protect us, but some think only unbelievers should perform this duty (because it is incompatible with kingdom living). And according to some here, if an unbeliever in this role becomes a believer, s/he should get out and find another job.

Can you image if an entire department became believers and put in their 2 week notice? Would we rejoice with the angels in heaven or moan as we install bars on our windows? Maybe both?

You could say, "Well, unbelievers will always outnumber believers so it's doubtful there will ever be a shortage of soldiers, police officers, correctional officers, or security guards," but even if true, that misses the point.

It seems to me there is something terribly wrong with a view that says until Christ returns, it's better for everyone if a fairly large number of decent people remain unconverted sinners so they can fill these positions.

[mattrose]

It seems to me there is something terribly wrong with a view that says until Christ returns, it's better for everyone if a fairly large number of decent people remain unconverted sinners so they can fill these positions.

The view I am advocating does NOT say that it is better for everyone if a fairly large number of decent people remain unconverted sinners so they can fill these positions. The view I am advocating says it is better if everyone be converted so such positions won't be necessary. I trust God is wise enough to make sure that there are means to dealing with the remnants of fallenness as His Kingdom progresses.

The idea here is that we are less likely to actually reach people for Christ if we don't flesh out a real alternative way of living, one that refuses to utilize violence to accomplish its goals.

It seems to me that the argument you've made here is so hypothetical that it betrays its own flaw in the need to resort to hypotheticals.

[psimmond]

mattrose wrote: The view I am advocating says it is better if everyone be converted so such positions won't be necessary.

Of course, but we know for a fact that that won't happen before the return of Christ, so let's stick with possible hypotheticals.

It seems to me that the argument you've made here is so hypothetical that it betrays its own flaw in the need to resort to hypotheticals.

I think it shows a weakness in your position to try to brush off this possible hypothetical so quickly rather than deal with it.

In the fallen world in which we live, do you or do you not want non-Christian police and soldiers to protect you and your neighbors?

[mattrose]

Of course, but we know for a fact that that won't happen before the return of Christ, so let's stick with possible hypotheticals.

I suppose pre-millennialists know that for a fact. I happen to be amillennialist and open theist, so I'd hesitate to agree with you there. But I think this is somewhat beside the point you are making, so I will let it go at that.

I think it shows a weakness in your position to try to brush off this possible hypothetical so quickly rather than deal with it.

I'm not trying to brush it off. But it is a bit frustrating that the bulk of the arguments against my position in this thread have been unlikely hypothetical scenarios. I'll try to answer your question below...

In the fallen world in which we live, do you or do you not want non-Christian police and soldiers to protect you and your neighbors?

In the fallen world in which we live, I do not have a choice in the matter. There are 'non-Christian' police and soldiers AND there are 'Christian' police and soldiers. If you're asking if I sometimes benefit from this, I would surely say yes. But you're actually asking if I 'want non-Christian police and soldiers to protect' me and my neighbors. To be honest, I'm not sure how to answer. I sometimes benefit from it. I am thankful for it. But to say I want it isn't as simple a statement as you might think it should be. What I most 'want' is for them to become Christians.

Let's say all Christians pulled out of the police and military. What would happen? Most likely, the remaining police and military would become more corrupt than ever (b/c of the absence of Christians with high character). Trust in government would fall even lower than it is now. People might even stop depending on government and/or putting their hope in government. Meanwhile, the Christian church might be stronger than ever, with a fleet of Kingdom people fully committed to Jesus and His Way. As the world became darker, the church would become brighter than ever... and quite attractive to the ever-increasing number of desperate people (the very kind of people that tend to make great converts). Perhaps the government would even turn on the Christians... declaring it to be illegal and trying to wipe it out. Do I 'want' such a scenario to happen? Selfishly, no. But do I think the church would be stronger than ever in such a scenario. I tend to think so. Do i think non-Christians would be more likely to see the light of the Gospel in such a scenario. I actually do.

And THAT is actually not so hypothetical a scenario. It is somewhat akin to the situation in the early church where, for the most part it seems, Christians did not participate in the military... the government did turn against them... and lots of people were becoming Christians (perhaps because of the clear contrast, amongst other things). If you would have asked the early Christians what you just asked me 'do you WANT non-Christians to protect you?' I think they would have said... they don't protect us. And that's the sort of scenario I think is most likely.

There are just so many variables to consider, I'm sort of at a loss to know how to answer your question.... or to know if the question even makes good sense.

But, to be honest, it is pretty confusing to me why I'm being told that to hold my position with integrity I should reject God's gracious gift of government for this fallen age. Why should I do that? That God has chosen to provide earthly governments has little or nothing to do with what He has called Christians toward.[/quote]

[psimmond]

mattrose wrote: But, to be honest, it is pretty confusing to me why I'm being told that to hold my position with integrity I should reject God's gracious gift of government for this fallen age. Why should I do that?

I would suggest the opposite: that you not reject God's gracious gift of government. I think you're making the same mistake that Peter made and calling unclean what God has made clean.

Does God want all men to be saved and live in a manner consistent with his kingdom (on earth as it is in heaven), or did God establish something for our benefit that requires some people to remain outside of his kingdom so that they can bear the sword?

Please carefully consider the implications of your position with regard to God's character and will.

[mattrose]

mattrose wrote: But, to be honest, it is pretty confusing to me why I'm being told that to hold my position with integrity I should reject God's gracious gift of government for this fallen age. Why should I do that?

I would suggest the opposite: that you not reject God's gracious gift of government. I think you're making the same mistake that Peter made and calling unclean what God has made clean.

Does God want all men to be saved and live in a manner consistent with his kingdom (on earth as it is in heaven), or did God establish something for our benefit that requires some people to remain outside of his kingdom so that they can bear the sword?

Please carefully consider the implications of your position with regard to God's character and will.

I have carefully considered it (otherwise I would not be taking a position that puts me in such a small minority and makes people angry).

If you think my position maligns God's character and will... then I suspect I haven't communicated it well enough yet.

Your question is still flawed. You're suggesting I have to choose between God wanting all people to be saved (in a world that still includes military or police) OR God requiring some people to remain unsaved (as military or police). It's a false dilemma. If all people were saved, there's be no need for military or police. Since all people are not saved, there is wisdom in such things.

I am not calling military or police work sinful (if that's what you mean by unclean, which isn't what the Old Testament meant anyways). My point is that we are called to be a kingdom of priests. Priests didn't go to war. We have a different calling.

I think you're making the mistake of not thinking through the implications of having so little difference between the Church and the world in regards to using violence as a means. We can continue to discuss the differences between our views if you so desire (perhaps we'll have a breakthrough?). But I do want to just say (b/c we seem to be disagreeing with some level of passion), once again, that I believe this is a secondary issue. I am not absolutely certain I am right (Christians and there relationship to government is a notoriously thorny issue). Nor do I fail to recognize that other Christians have different, well thought out, positions/convictions on this issue. Indeed, one could theorize that the temporal disagreement between Christians on this issue serves a purpose in and of itself... in helping the transition occur more slowly back to the early church position. God is not in the business, in most cases, of ripping of band-aids.

[jriccitelli]

I don’t use bandaids much, but if I did, and never removed them I would be covered head to toe in them

(I was ‘trying’ to write in another thread but the words started to fit better here)
Hypothetical? Hypothetical is a perfect Christian world, even Christians sin. Are you proposing a world without any law at all? Even a Christian can refuse paying a traffic fine, or become drunk and get behind a wheel, or neglect paying child support, or beat his spouse…

Do you suppose ‘all’ humans will become Christians one day, and thus will one day stop sinning ‘forever’? What if another human is born? God instituted laws for His own people, including death penalties. You may be overlooking the whole necessity, and ability to enforce the law – no one is going to stop, or get into a jail cell, or pay a fine if they don’t 'want' to, unless someone carries the sword (this is not hypothetical).
Another thing we are reminded of daily is our own sin, am I better than the unsaved? No.

Often I have declared they are 'more' righteous than me (that’s why I need a Savior). Another thing I have seen is saved Christians who sin, and I have known the unsaved that needed protection from the saved. Just because someone is ‘saved’ does not mean they could not attempt a heinous sin. If I see a ‘Christian’ man about to hurt an unsaved person, do I withhold action in order to promote the Gospel and the law of Christ??