Pacifism

[morbo3000]

Morbo, I can't believe that you actually said that Jesus may have forgotten to tell the Centurion that he must now forsake his military career. Jesus, God in the flesh, forgot something??? I don't believe John forgot to mention that to the soldiers, either, but at least that would be more of a possibility, since he was not God.

You misunderstood. I did not say that Jesus forgot. Nor that John forgot. I said it wasn't the priority of the gospel writer to include those facts in those stories, because that wasn't the point of those stories.

Example:

The rich young ruler came to Jesus seeking eternal life. Jesus told him to give up everything to follow him, which he refused to do and went on his way.

The Centurion came to Jesus for healing of this child. Jesus marveled at his faith, and healed the child.

Now, the centurion may have also been wealthy. If so, we might wonder if Jesus forgot to tell him that he needs to give up his riches or else he would forfeit eternal life.

But we don't know. We don't know if the centurion was wealthy. The point of the story is his faith, so it ends there, without any more description about the exchange between the centurion and Jesus.

So, we are limited to draw conclusions from details that are omitted in a story. That is not an accusation of Jesus/God, nor undermining the authority of scripture. It is accepting the fact of what is, and isn't in a story.

But you say that that was not John's primary purpose, that he assumed that they would learn that later on.

No. I'm saying that we don't know. We know what John's purpose was, because the text tells us. We know very little about what John anticipated would happen in Jesus' ministry. In fact, we know that he was confused, because he sent messengers to ask Jesus for clarification.

I don't believe Paul or Jesus were pacifists.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are in good company. It has been shared by the vast majority of Christians throughout history.

[steve]

It [the idea that Jesus and Paul were not pacifists] has been shared by the vast majority of Christians throughout history.

If pacifism means the condemning of all warfare, then there have been very few Christians in any era who were "pacifists." However, if we are talking about the belief that soldiery is not a proper occupation for followers of Christ, this appears to have been the majority Christian position for the first three centuries.

[morbo3000]

@steve Agreed.

[jaydam]

Sorry in advance for the somewhat lengthy response. I am gaining better clarity on where I fall on pacifism, and getting a little better at expressing what is in my head, but its still a work in progress. I am composing my Master's thesis on the topic, but there is no way I'm going to bog down the forum with that. Besides, it isn't nearly complete enough to post.

Edit: Pacifism needs to be defined - In society and much of my reading, it extends beyond the military and looks to the rejection of taking life and/or the use of violence in general. This broader use of it is the way in which I address it.

Some pacifists do not believe in any violence. This would include restraint by force which a purist would see as the use of violence. If I saw one person assaulting another, I have no problem going up and restraining one or the other. In fact, I intervened in an attempted stabbing awhile back where I did just that. Jumped on the knife wielder and held him until police arrived. Additionally, I was in a situation where I encountered a drunk man attempting to fight. His level of intoxication allowed me to simply bear hug him until I talked him down and was able to let him go, and he walked away.

Thus, in the area of using force, I would not fully fall under pacifism, as I am ok with the use of restraint. Where I tend to agree with pacifism would be in the area of not taking a life intentionally.

Each of the situations I was in and others I have encountered, I have been Spirit led. A police officer would have used deadly force against the knife wielder, but when I do not see using deadly force as an option, I jeopardize my own own life for the sake of the assaulted, while also showing what I believe is Christ's compassion to not kill the man who is now my enemy as I am placing myself in front of him. Either the Spirit will protect me and allow me to live another day, or not. I could kill the man to protect my life, only to die 30 minutes later in a car accident. Preserving my life is not my job.

God did not kill me when I was yet his enemy, why would I presume to treat my enemies with any less compassion? Certainly God gets to the point he takes out people on earth, but I believe that is his prerogative alone.

The first issue, and easiest for me, is that of armed service to the state. I do not see that a Christian can place himself in the position where the state takes the role of the Holy Spirit in dictating using deadly force. Even if you want to argue the use of force in the personal life of a Christian, at least in their personal life, the Christian is ruled by the Spirit. However, in service to the state, the Christian is guided by state goals. I helped kill for the state to advance democracy and political freedom - two items I see no justification in the Bible for taking a life.

Our war on terror has motivated and unleashed more terrorism than there ever was before. Armed service to the state places state interest above human interest. A common motto I hear is, "Better to fight the enemy on their soil than have them come here and kill our own people." What has this caused? Vast power vacuums in foreign countries which has led to far more persecution of Christians than there has been in a long time. I was just reading about how it is very probable that the churches in Syria and Iraq could very well be wiped out because of the snowball we started through instability due to our need for revenge and our thinking that its better them than us. Right wing conservative Christians who greatly support the use of the military are the initiator to a lot of the suffering we see now of their brothers and sisters in the faith.

Romans 13 says that governments are God's servants, but this does not mean that they spiritually serve him, it simply means that God uses governments to maintain a balance in the world. If you look through the course of history, most of the governments that have served God's purpose have not been godly - Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greeks, Romans, and the list goes on. Thus, I do not believe Romans 13 can be used to say governments should be Christian. Rather, Paul is saying, "Even the governments who seem so oppressive to us are subservient to God." Notice that Paul says to submit to the government, but does not talk about attempting to gain office and redirect government.

Romans 13 says that governments are God's servant to inflict wrath upon the evil doer, but the Christian in Romans 12 appears to be God's servant to love the evil doer. I know many Christians who believe you can bypass your Romans 12 duty by attaching yourself in service to the government and therefore get to participate in executing God's wrath. I do not see this. I see that Romans 12 distinctly sets Christians apart from the function of government. God has instruments of his love in the world - Christians - and means of executing his wrath - governments. I believe that the responsibilities of a Christian keep them from joining the government.

Certainly Christians fight evil, but Paul tells us we do not do so with material weapons, but spiritual.

As for the soldiers John spoke to, or the Centurion Christ spoke of, the Bible does not tell us where their faith led them, but just tells us where it met them and began to work on them. I do not believe you can use the encounters for support either way. To use them to support military service is really an argument from silence because nothing was said to commend or denounce their service.

In reality, Christ remained apolitical his entire time on earth, but that does not mean he approved or disapproved of things. His lack of voicing an opinion one way or the other in order to not take a political side must be weighed against the other things he said which I believe at least prevent armed service to the state - in other words, killing in state interest - and should lead to pacifism.

The early church viewed it this way, and for the first 300 years it appears that military service barred one from fellowship in the church. This went on until the church wed itself to the state under Constantine which I do not believe is an exemplary occasion upon which to rest one's opinion.

The state meets force with force - and what is this, but an eye for an eye. Actually, it is more than that as the state meets force with overwhelming, defeating, responsive force. It is really a head for an eye. A mindset that Christ spoke against. We call the resulting lack of conflict peace, but it is really a ceasefire in the face of threatened hostility. True peace is defined as a lack of hostility on both sides. Peace is attained by winning your enemy over, not getting them to cease hostility through the ability to respond with greater hostility.

This brings one to the topic of personal use of deadly force, outside of service to the state. I've touched on it a little bit with my personal experiences. But to address it further, I do not take an absolute, nonlethal stance. This is because I walk through life led by the Spirit, and I cannot say with 100% certainty that the Spirit would not lead me to kill - but I lean towards that understanding.

I am to live as much as possible at peace with all. Does this mean that when peace fails I can resort to an eye for an eye? That is not what scripture is saying I believe. Rather, scripture is acknowledging that as much as I try to keep peace, others may act differently towards me. So what do I do then? Romans 12 tells me, I love on those who will not give me peace. Always working to move them towards peace.

I don't think it works to say, "Well, I tried to live in peace with them, but they won't accept it, so now its an eye for an eye until peace it reached through attrition." Our work towards peace never ceases even though it may not always succeed.

So what if my wife is being assaulted? I place myself in front of her. Now her enemy is my enemy. Now I treat my enemy as the Bible tells me to, I offer to feed him, care for him, and attempt to bring about peace. What happens at that point? Its up to the Holy Spirit to protect me and use my loving witness to reach the perpetrator.

Again, I can defend my wife from the pain of a horrible assault today by taking a life, only to have her run over by a bus tomorrow and die in agony. I do not make my decision based upon suffering.

This is ideal. It does not take into account many variables. As a pacifist, I believe I could still attempt to remove a gun from an attackers hands, but what happens in the struggle for the gun if it goes off and shoots my attacker and kills him? I'm ok with that incident as long as I did not go into the struggle intent on killing the attacker.

I will admit, I do not want to be a pacifist in my mind. My heart leads me to it, but my mind fights it. Over numerous years of military service, bouncing at bars, etc. I became skilled at violence. I would readily draw upon my expertise to solve the problem and take out the evildoer, but while my mind would do it, it is not in my heart.

[dwight92070]

Jaydam

What if you are too late and her attacker has already sexually assaulted her and is continuing to do so?

[thrombomodulin]

If pacifism means the condemning of all warfare, then there have been very few Christians in any era who were "pacifists." However, if we are talking about the belief that soldiery is not a proper occupation for followers of Christ, this appears to have been the majority Christian position for the first three centuries.

Steve - I think that this implies that there must be some wars, fought by non-Christians, in the first three centuries that met with the approval of believers at the time. If this happened, I would be interested in learning more about it. Do the writings of the early church contain examples that show their approval of the State's waging of a war?

I now lean toward the view that Christians shouldn't take these positions, in order to be able to fulfill the law of Christ as He expressed it in Matt 5, 6, and 7. I am not saying that those who do become police officers or hold a political position are doing wrong intrinsically in taking those positions—just that they are likely to encounter internal conflict in attempting to fulfill the expectations of that office and at the same time carry out the laws of Christ. There seems to be a clear line of demarcation between the "kingdoms of the world" and "the Kingdom of God." These two kingdoms are frequently in conflict. Jesus said that no one cannot serve two masters.

Thanks for your reply. Our view is much more similar than I expected. A difference is that I am leaning towards the view that the conflicts are intrinsic, for given the nature of the State I am not seeing circumstances in which the conflicts could be avoided.

Thanks
Pete

[jaydam]

Jaydam

What if you are too late and her attacker has already sexually assaulted her and is continuing to do so?

As hidden within my lengthy post, I have no problem with restraint, just deadly force. I would restrain him and/or place myself in harms way to prevent his further access to my wife. At the same time I would still offer hospitality and love.

My wife does not see eye to eye with me, and has expressed her wish that I would grab my gun should we hear someone break into the house.

Her concern is what she would do if I was killed due to my refusal to use deadly force, and now she is alone with the attacker. I believe that is between her and God. She could just as easily find herself alone against an attacker walking to her car at night.

[dwight92070]

Morbo,

You are comparing apples to oranges. We know that being rich is not intrinsicly wrong, so Jesus had no need to mention riches to the Centurion. But apparently you think that being in the military is wrong for a believer, so I am saying, if that were true, Jesus would have mentioned it to the Centurion, especially since he was obviously trying to obey Jesus in his life. Since He did not mention it, I think Jesus had no issues with him being a military commander.

Dwight

[morbo3000]

if that were true (being in the military is wrong for a believer), Jesus would have mentioned it to the Centurion, especially since he was obviously trying to obey Jesus in his life.

Since He did not mention it, I think Jesus had no issues with him being a military commander.

I think what you are trying to say is that God, as the author of scripture, would have taken the opportunity of a military commander meeting Jesus to make the statement that being in the military is unChristian.

What I'm saying is that we simply don't know any more about Jesus' conversation with the centurion than what the gospel writer recorded. So we can't build a case for or against something based on what wasn't said in a passage. We can only build a case on what is actually said.

In John 21:25, John wrote: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

We have no idea how much time the centurion may have spent with Jesus. Imagine if he spent an entire day with Jesus. We don't know. But imagine if he did. Imagine spending a day with Jesus, and all the things he might have said to you. Now, if Jesus' biographer was with the two of you, which stories might he pick out from the conversation to include in his biography? What he thinks was important may be completely different than what you thought was important. And maybe there are things Jesus said to you that you think would have been really helpful to others, but the biographer overlooked.

From your perspective in this debate, if God is a pacifist, the most important thing Jesus could have told the centurion was to lay down his sword. And that his biographer, the gospel writer, out of the 100's of things that had been said that day between Jesus and the centurion, the most important thing to record would be whether or not he should lay down his sword.

What I'm saying is that we only know the parts of that conversation that the gospel writer, inspired by the holy spirit, as you likely believe, only saw one part of that conversation the most important to include. We don't know anything about the other conversations. So we can't build a case for or against something based on what wasn't said in a passage. We can only build a case on what is actually said.

I'll let it rest at that. I don't think I can say it any better.

[jaydam]

Jesus would have mentioned it to the Centurion, especially since he was obviously trying to obey Jesus in his life.

How do you know this? Military service had deeply political ties in Roman society, and Christ's goal was to remain apolitical. If Christ began to openly lead soldiers out of the ranks, it would cause serious issues for him. So, as many times, Christ left the subject untouched.

Besides, there are many cases where people wanted to follow Jesus and he did not list 101 things they should do in their life to follow him.

As I said in my previous lengthy post, to argue from the centurion story is to argue from silence. Christ neither commended nor condemned the centurion's service, so we are left to look elsewhere for the answer.

Since He did not mention it, I think Jesus had no issues with him being a military commander.

You are placing personal opinion into a matter which you cannot truly know one way or the other.

A person can be commended for their great faith, but it does not mean they do not have much to learn and change in their life.