Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[mattrose]

Interesting discussion. As far as the question of being in the military vs. being a civilian policeman, it might not have been under consideration in the early church, seeing that there was no distinction between military and police in the Roman Empire as there is today. The military filled the role of policemen back in early Christianity.

If Jesus considered it wrong to be in the military, it is odd that He did not say "go and sin no more" to the centurian in Luke 7:1-10. And why was the centurian in Acts 10 not urged to resign from the military? Was his reception of the Holy Spirit an acceptance of him and his military status?

I think there is a principle in the New Testament that applies here. Generally, the Lord wants us to keep our pre-Christian commitment post-conversion. Bond-servants should willingly continue to serve. Polygamists should not throw their other wives out on the street. Women should not divorce their non-Christian husbands. Etc. Since the general time frame was the pax romana (peace of rome), it may have been quite possible for roman soldiers to not utilize violence during their careers. That's why I think it was an in-house debate as to whether a convert needed to leave the military.

That being said, your point (not just yours, of course, those passages are brought up by many) is totally an argument from silence. Jesus' NOT addressing their military jobs isn't the same as an endorsement!

I have known several men who were policemen and devout Christians. Were they in sin throughout their careers?

Again, no. I don't think they were necessarily in sin. Each one of us is responsible to follow our convictions and live out our best understanding of Jesus' commands. If they used violence, I think, as Christians, they were wrong to do so. But they don't answer to me.

As alluded to previously, it would seem that they might have been "salt" in their position. One of them was a member of LAPD for many years. He knew the men who beat Rodney King, and said they were bad cops. If there are no Christians in the police, would the police be better or worse?

It's hard to say. If there were no Christians in the police b/c all Christians were actively practicing enemy love, we might not need the police for much longer as we could very well usher in the kingdom of God.

A few years back I was outside working in our yard. I heard what sounded like gunshots, but thought nothing of it. We live in a small rural town, and it is not unusual to see deer in town, and occasionally cougars are seen. And gunshots are not an unfamiliar sound near town. But this day the gunfire was different. A man had driven into the local Chevron mini-mart and taken a young woman hostage. The sheriff's deputies arrived and there was a stand-off. The man was holding the girl close with a gun to her head. He lowered the gun for a moment and was immediately shot dead by a police sniper.

Now it might be argued that the man's death precluded any opportunity for repentance. But it is equally true that if he killed the girl her opportunity for repentance, if needed, would have also ended. So to me this consideration is a non-factor.

Was it a sin for the sheriff's deputy to kill the man? What if you were a hunter or somehow an expert marksman and happened on the scene. Would it have been a sin for you to shoot the man? Or a sin to allow the girl to be killed? Would it have made any difference if the girl was your child? And if you could shoot the man without it being a sin, why would it be a sin for you to do so as a policeman?

Was it a sin for the sheriff's deputy to kill the man? No, I don't think so. He was performing his role.

What if I, as a Christian, had the capability of killing the man... would it be a sin for me to kill the man? Yes, I believe it would. First off, it's not the role of passing by hunter's to shoot criminals. Secondly, I believe Jesus wants me to love my enemy.

Would it make a difference if the girl was my daughter? It might change my actions, but that says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of such actions.

If I could shoot the man w/o it being a sin, why couldn't I do so as a policeman? Since I reject the former, the latter is already answered.

J. Jeremias stated that Jesus' prohibition against using force was always in the context of persecution for your faith. Was He wrong?

I think so. I think killing people is always wrong for Christians.

Would Jesus have used force to defend someone?

No, I don't think so.

What about the woman caught in adultery? If her accusers had ignored Jesus and prepared to stone her anyway, would Jesus have gotten his dander up

I think he would intercepted each stone until he could do so no more.

as when He cleansed the temple and used force?

Note, we have no evidence that Jesus used violence on any people in that episode. It was a symbolic action, not a case of bullying.

Doesn't seem out of the question, given what He did to Jerusalem in 70AD.

Is your point here that if God used violence against Jerusalem in AD70, it shows us that we can sometimes use violence too?

First, God is God. If there are differences in roles b/w believers and non-believers, imagine the difference in roles b/w Creator and creation.

Second, did JESUS destroy Jerusalem in AD70? Or did God simply remove protection and let Rome be Rome? The removal of restraint is all that is necessary, in most cases, for God to judge. The most scary thing imaginable, in my mind, is not 'sinners in the hands of an angry God,' but 'sinners no longer in the hands of God.'

Just thinking.

Thanks Homer. I appreciate the tone of the dialogue.

[steve7150]

Was it a sin for the sheriff's deputy to kill the man? No, I don't think so. He was performing his role.

What if I, as a Christian, had the capability of killing the man... would it be a sin for me to kill the man? Yes, I believe it would. First off, it's not the role of passing by hunter's to shoot criminals. Secondly, I believe Jesus wants me to love my enemy.

Would it make a difference if the girl was my daughter? It might change my actions, but that says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of such actions.

If I could shoot the man w/o it being a sin, why couldn't I do so as a policeman? Since I reject the former, the latter is already answered.

J. Jeremias stated that Jesus' prohibition against using force was always in the context of persecution for your faith. Was He wrong?



I think so. I think killing people is always wrong for Christians.

Would Jesus have used force to defend someone?



No, I don't think so.








It is an interesting question because we are to try to conform ourselves like Jesus but we have roles in life that Jesus did not have. I think as fathers and husbands we have an obligation to protect our families and spouses and if we choose to be a policeman we must take on the responsibilities of the job. To do otherwise would be dishonest and may put at risk other people.
If a person held someone hostage and i as a policeman believed the hostage was in immediate danger of her life it would be my duty to protect the hostage including killing the criminal. That part of the job you pledge to carry out once you accept the job. The key to me is that in certain situations like this if a policeman must kill a criminal it is not murder. Murder and killing are not necessarily the same thing.
As to whether a Christian should be a policeman because violence may come up at some point i think one should follow their conscience because there are numerous gray areas in life.
Should Tim Tebow be a football player? He seems to be a devout Christian yet he plays a game which subtly promotes violence by glorifying "aggressive play."
Aggressive play in football and hockey often includes violent "hits" against opponents. There are many other professing Christians in sports and though i believe they would refrain from injuring other players they do engage in a limited amount of violence due to the nature of their sport. Should they withdraw from sports participation?
Jesus gave us principals of the kingdom of God yet we are to be in the world but not of this world. How does a Christian be "in the world" yet remove ourselves from many activities that are "in the world"? Being not of this world i think means living out the principals of Jesus to the extent possible while being "in the world."
Lastly re "loving my enemy" and whether this means i should allow my enemy to murder an innocent victim, we should remember the hostage victim is our neighbor and we are also to "love our neighbor" and standing by and allowing my enemy to murder my neighbor is not an example of "love" IMHO.

[mattrose]

It is an interesting question because we are to try to conform ourselves like Jesus but we have roles in life that Jesus did not have. I think as fathers and husbands we have an obligation to protect our families and spouses

I think it is an interesting question. There is definitely a tension b/w our sense of responsibility toward our earthly family and our sense of responsibility toward the kingdom. Jesus talked about this in terms that are today titled 'hard sayings.'

and if we choose to be a policeman we must take on the responsibilities of the job. To do otherwise would be dishonest and may put at risk other people.
If a person held someone hostage and i as a policeman believed the hostage was in immediate danger of her life it would be my duty to protect the hostage including killing the criminal. That part of the job you pledge to carry out once you accept the job. The key to me is that in certain situations like this if a policeman must kill a criminal it is not murder. Murder and killing are not necessarily the same thing.

I actually agree that if we've already made the choice to become a policeman (either before we became Christians or prior to re-thinking the ideas being talked about here), then we have an obligation to do our job until such time as we can get out of that line of work.

I also agree that murder and killing are not the same thing. If I did think they were the same thing, I would be what the original poster was calling a 'total pacifist.' But I don't consider myself a pacifist at all (because of its connotation toward 'doing nothing'.... I aim to be a peacemaker). I think the killing of criminals is a right of government. Murder is wrong for everyone, every-time.

As to whether a Christian should be a policeman because violence may come up at some point i think one should follow their conscience because there are numerous gray areas in life.

I agree. But 1 thing I think is important is for Christians who are policemen and/or considering such a role to HEAR the 'peacemaker' argument. I don't think most Christians hear the 'peacemaker' position defended or argued. It is always 'violence OR do-nothing' as if those are the only 2 options. If those were the only 2 options I'd pick 'do something' too.

Should Tim Tebow be a football player? He seems to be a devout Christian yet he plays a game which subtly promotes violence by glorifying "aggressive play."
Aggressive play in football and hockey often includes violent "hits" against opponents. There are many other professing Christians in sports and though i believe they would refrain from injuring other players they do engage in a limited amount of violence due to the nature of their sport. Should they withdraw from sports participation?

Your right to bring this issue up b/c, once again, it is not entirely clear. For my part, I think there are acceptable levels of physical aggression in sport. One extreme would be something like the gladiator games, which Telemachus was surely right to speak out against. The key factor is clearly motivation. Football & hockey players are definitely not supposed to be motivated by the intent to injure. In cases where such intent is proven, there are heavy penalties (the New Orleans Saints just went through some hefty penalties for that very thing). But that is quite a bit different than signing up for a job where you know you might have to kill someone.

Jesus gave us principals of the kingdom of God yet we are to be in the world but not of this world. How does a Christian be "in the world" yet remove ourselves from many activities that are "in the world"? Being not of this world i think means living out the principals of Jesus to the extent possible while being "in the world."
.

I'm not sure why Jesus would give us principles that were not possible to fulfill in this world. In fact, nobody here is denying that it is possible. People are just denying that it is the right thing to do.

Lastly re "loving my enemy" and whether this means i should allow my enemy to murder an innocent victim, we should remember the hostage victim is our neighbor and we are also to "love our neighbor" and standing by and allowing my enemy to murder my neighbor is not an example of "love" IMHO

Once again, EVERY SINGLE TIME I see this issue argued, the options are listed as 'violence' OR 'standing by and allowing.' There's only 2 possible reasons I can think of why the options are always listed like this. First, maybe we really aren't aware of the third option (do something non-violent). Or two, people are aware but know that that third option is defensible and so they choose not to mention it so as to create a straw man opposition.

Part of my overall point is that we have to think about, talk about, dialogue about, imagine, etc. what it means to be peacemakers. Too many Christians automatically go to the violent options in their mind. It's amazing to me how many Christians respond to issues like terrorism or North Korea with the statement 'just nuke em.' I see Christians post on facebook, on a weekly basis, statements about how they would love to 'punch so and so in the face (whether it be Obama or Bernanke or the person who just said something bad about their mom). I don't think the peacemaker position has been adequately preached, taught, or discussed.

When I read Jesus in the sermon on the mount, I read a fascinating third option. I read a command not to participate in violence. I read a command not to do nothing. I am fascinated and flabbergasted at the same time. God forbid that I, or we, just say "that part doesn't work in the real world.' I'm pretty sure Jesus was familiar with the real world.

[steve7150]

Lastly re "loving my enemy" and whether this means i should allow my enemy to murder an innocent victim, we should remember the hostage victim is our neighbor and we are also to "love our neighbor" and standing by and allowing my enemy to murder my neighbor is not an example of "love" IMHO



Once again, EVERY SINGLE TIME I see this issue argued, the options are listed as 'violence' OR 'standing by and allowing.' There's only 2 possible reasons I can think of why the options are always listed like this. First, maybe we really aren't aware of the third option (do something non-violent). Or two, people are aware but know that that third option is defensible and so they choose not to mention it so as to create a straw man opposition.








I meant to portray that implicit in my comments was the fact that "should allow my enemy to murder an innocent victim" meant that the criminal was imminently going to kill the victim at the next second unless the police kill him. Certainly every non violent alternative s/b tried first but if nothing is left except either the hostage being murdered or the criminal being killed then what is the right thing to do? So this is not a straw man argument it is a legitimate question that happens when one is in the this present evil world yet is also in the kingdom of God.
Yes Jesus knew the kingdom of the world but he didn't cover every situation, like as fathers and husbands what length should we go to protect loved ones and many other situations.

[mattrose]

I meant to portray that implicit in my comments was the fact that "should allow my enemy to murder an innocent victim" meant that the criminal was imminently going to kill the victim at the next second unless the police kill him. Certainly every non violent alternative s/b tried first but if nothing is left except either the hostage being murdered or the criminal being killed then what is the right thing to do? So this is not a straw man argument it is a legitimate question that happens when one is in the this present evil world yet is also in the kingdom of God.
Yes Jesus knew the kingdom of the world but he didn't cover every situation, like as fathers and husbands what length should we go to protect loved ones and many other situations.

Certainly if...
1. every non-violent alternative had been tried
2. nothing is left except the hostage being murdered or the criminal killed
AND
3. no proper authorities are around

Then I would not judge a person whatever way they decided to act in that situation. My issue is with people who aren't even interested in trying #1, act like they KNOW #2 for sure when its not really the case and don't feel there's any need for #3 at all.

My other point is that, though such a situation as you describe does arise in this fallen world, it almost never comes about for most of us. So it is a rhetorical technique to always go to this sort of situation when discussing the peacemaker approach. 99.9% of all situations can be handled without violence... but we always resort to talking about the .1% and use that discussion to paint the peacemaker approach with unfavorable colors.

[steve7150]

My other point is that, though such a situation as you describe does arise in this fallen world, it almost never comes about for most of us. So it is a rhetorical technique to always go to this sort of situation when discussing the peacemaker approach. 99.9% of all situations can be handled without violence... but we always resort to talking about the .1% and use that discussion to paint the peacemaker approach with unfavorable colors.








It was not my intention to paint the peacemaker approach unfavorably particularly since Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Also i was not trying to follow up on posts by others but to consider a rare but possible circumstance when a Christian has to really think through what he/she should do when someone else's life is at stake
and a life or death decision is necessary.
In Rom 12.18 Paul said "if it is possible" to make peace with everyone we should, but he left open the possibility there may be times when it isn't possible.

[mattrose]

It was not my intention to paint the peacemaker approach unfavorably particularly since Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Also i was not trying to follow up on posts by others but to consider a rare but possible circumstance when a Christian has to really think through what he/she should do when someone else's life is at stake
and a life or death decision is necessary.

Fair enough

In Rom 12.18 Paul said "if it is possible" to make peace with everyone we should, but he left open the possibility there may be times when it isn't possible.

SURELY Paul does not mean by this statement that because some people insist on being enemies, it may be appropriate to kill them.

He is saying that because some people insist on being enemies, you may not be able to win them as friends.

The context makes clear that Paul agreed with Jesus that it is not the role of Christians to utilize violence.

The verse right before this states, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil"

The verses right after it states, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Paul then goes on, in chapter 13 to describe one of the main ways in which God avenges evil. He does so through worldly governments. The transition between Romans 12 and Romans 13 once again shows the distinction between the ethics required of different entities. The church overcomes evil with loving sacrifice. The government punishes evil with the sword. Both have a God given role.

[steve7150]

The context makes clear that Paul agreed with Jesus that it is not the role of Christians to utilize violence.

The verse right before this states, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil"

The verses right after it states, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."








I certainly agree with Paul but in the previous circumstance i described i wouldn't consider saving an innocent victim imminently facing death at the hands of a murderer as an example of "evil" and in fact i see the intervention as "good" because of the role of the police or the role of the parent or possibly even the good Samaritan.
Of course violence is the last choice of a Christian but IMHO in rare defensive situations it's necessary. That's just my take when i take into consideration everything on this matter i can think of from scripture. Certainly if you disagree i have no problem, i can understand complete non violence.

[jriccitelli]

So it is a rhetorical technique to always go to this sort of situation when discussing the peacemaker approach. 99.9% of all situations can be handled without violence... but we always resort to talking about the .1% and use that discussion to paint the peacemaker approach with unfavorable colors (Matt)

I opened my argument with the context of the final resort decision, so diffused situations were never the question. Note the opening statement;

I am not talking about a situation that doesn’t call for force, no matter what situation, if after we have attempted, tried or considered other alternative strategies, it becomes clear it is too dangerous for the defense to safely subdue or divert the aggressor – this is where we begin the question about pacifism (full pacifism)

Although you are missing the point that strength and lethal power backs up the consideration and ability of 99% (hyperbole) of hostile arrests. (again a person has no reason to get into the back of a patrol car or jail cell without threat of intentional force)

You are not considering a number of things, a person who is weaker, should not be forced to engage, grapple, plead or whatever if it furthers their chance of harm. We are not talking just about death to a victim, there is no reason an innocent party should be harmed in any way at all - the innocent person should not have to suffer 'any' harm, just because an attacker feels like it. If a man were to want to hit a woman child or otherwise, it needn't be only the threat of death that needs diverting; rape, abduction, attack, harm of numerous sorts is to be stopped from happening to a innocent person.

It would be better if all Roman soldiers, did convert, what on earth are you resorting to the 3rd century church for? Didn't they also institute the Papacy and priesthood, and eternal torment? We are a kingdom of priests and still we are everything else also, servants, soldiers, it does not say we are only priests.

The good Shepherd lays His life down for the sheep, the good shepherd doesn't lay his life down for the wolf, he kills the wolf, or at least gives the wolf a good solid stick to the head, how many sheep would we have today if all the shepherds lay on the ground, or run away and leave the sheep? I'm out of time, but taking one scripture from Jesus' sermon on the Law (Matthew 5) and thinking it erases all sense of reason and order put forth in the Law is... Gods intention and attitude about protecting the innocent from harm is what good people should imitate...

[mattrose]

I opened my argument with the context of the final resort decision, so diffused situations were never the question.

So your response to my complaint that pacifism is always judged by the >1% hypothetical situations is to remind me that you stated, from the outset, that that was your direct intention?

You are not considering a number of things, a person who is weaker, should not be forced to engage, grapple, plead or whatever if it furthers their chance of harm. We are not talking just about death to a victim, there is no reason an innocent party should be harmed in any way at all - the innocent person should not have to suffer 'any' harm, just because an attacker feels like it. If a man were to want to hit a woman child or otherwise, it needn't be only the threat of death that needs diverting; rape, abduction, attack, harm of numerous sorts is to be stopped from happening to a innocent person.

Are you suggesting killing all such attackers is on the table for Christians?

It would be better if all Roman soldiers, did convert, what on earth are you resorting to the 3rd century church for? Didn't they also institute the Papacy and priesthood, and eternal torment?

Sometimes I do not understand your grammar, so I can't respond as directly as I'd like. In any case, I consider the study of the 1st 3 centuries of church history to be of great value b/c of their chronological proximity to Jesus. When they make mistakes, it is b/c they go beyond (or in opposition to) what is revealed in the New Testament. But in the case of non-violence.... they went with it. I don't consider that a fault.

We are a kingdom of priests and still we are everything else also, servants, soldiers, it does not say we are only priests.

This simply doesn't make your point. Each metaphor has a meaning. Are you seriously suggesting that when the church is compared to an army of soldiers that it means the church is supposed to utilize violence? I always assumed that the reason for choosing this metaphor had more to do with the fact that we wear (Spiritual) armor, obey our commanding officer, and endure hardship!

The good Shepherd lays His life down for the sheep, the good shepherd doesn't lay his life down for the wolf, he kills the wolf, or at least gives the wolf a good solid stick to the head,

This now demonstrates a pattern of over-extending biblical metaphors.Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus' use of the sheep metaphor was intended to mean that sometimes Jesus kills people? Is this justified considering Jesus specifically said that the metaphor was intended to mean his willingness to die for the sheep?

how many sheep would we have today if all the shepherds lay on the ground, or run away and leave the sheep?

I don't know, but I think the church grew enormously... and continues to grow enormously in the world today.... in places/times when its leaders are willing to die.

I'm out of time, but taking one scripture from Jesus' sermon on the Law (Matthew 5) and thinking it erases all sense of reason and order put forth in the Law is... Gods intention and attitude about protecting the innocent from harm is what good people should imitate...

[/quote]

Once again, you are publishing the fact that you really don't listen to people you dialogue with. Am I REALLY suggesting that we erase all reason? No. I'm giving reasons why I think differently. Am I really suggesting the erasure of the order put forth in the law? No. Haven't I repeatedly stated that I recognize the role of the government? Am I really suggesting that we should not care about protecting the innocent? No. I am suggesting that there are better ways to protect the innocent than multiplying violence.

The thread is good dialogue in general. But my interaction with you seems unproductive b/c of your refusal to actually listen to what I'm saying. We disagree. But it does nothing to just keep re-stating your disagreement with a misrepresentation of me. For 'heaven's sake' (to use your words), I even granted that in the rare cases I wouldn't judge someone who resorted to violence. What is it you want me to do? Go on a murderous rampage?