Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[jriccitelli]

Steve I was finishing a response to Matt;
(you may note I have not responded to Matt or anyone since then, April 20, per your suggestions)

‘The real disagreement in this thread has more to do with the nature of the Kingdom's role and how that applies to a Christian's willingness to take part in an occupation that necessitates a willingness to kill…
(I think we are on the same page, now, in self-defense, but you're still not understanding my position on why I don't think Christians should get involved in the military or police force)… We do not seem to be in disagreement about the role of police officers. We are in disagreement about the role of Christians…’ (Matt apr22)
'This is not the same thing as signing up to do the same thing as a career' (Steve apr19)

My point was Christian officers can demonstrate real Christianity, while fulfilling their job. I am trying to define the argument by demonstrating that it is not the occupation (2) that is 'principle' but that everything is defined by the principle itself (1). And by showing the principle of kindness and love can be demonstrated by officers who are holding to the first principle of defending and protecting, even if force is necessary. This was to demonstrate that 2 is not opposed to 1.

And secondly; I did not bring up the two sword thing, I did not use it as my argument. It was a question by someone else. I am just amazed that you said they should trade in their coat for a cooking knife.

[Michelle]

jriccitelli,

I have to confess that I understand very little of what you posted here today. I may be slow today (well, not just today...) Would you mind explaining things a bit better for me?

All this seems to be from two different interpretations of the word ‘love’.
And the combination of both different interpretations of the words; ‘love’ and ‘enemies’.

I think you explained that your interpretation of the word love is "protecting the peaceful and not allowing someone to abuse another." That can't be the whole definition, is it? What do you believe is the other (different) interpretation?

Matt told me that ‘the difference between enemies and perpetrators was semantics’.

Do you disagree? Are perpetrators not your enemies? I suppose not all enemies are perpetrators, but aren't all perpetrators enemies?

I say; if I love someone, they are no longer my enemy.

I have no idea what this means. Do you mean that your perception of your enemy changes -- enemy becomes friend? Or could it be that his perception of you changes -- you become his friend? If perpetrators are not enemies, do they ever become friends (if they survive, that is)? Or am I missing your point entirely? Really, I have no idea what this means and would like to know.

[jriccitelli]

Hi Michelle, you seem sincere so I was not sure if when you said on the previous page; that you ‘never knew a woman should expect a man to protect her’. I was not sure, why not? My male friends don’t ‘expect’ me to protect them, but I would (if i felt like it, just joking).
The fairer members in our family could confess they 'expect' the men to defend them, I would hope so. I hope this didn’t sound Chauvinistic, we are not, and the women around here do know a bit of effective self-defense for sure and are nobody to mess with. But still, why do they always expect me to go check outside when they hear a strange noise…?

Anyways, Love truly is a many splendored thing; as wide as the ocean and deep as the sea’ but I am focusing on this context of judicial justice, and love.
The definition of Love seems to be at the root of the Universalist argument, and it seems to be at the root here also.
I see love as depicted in the Cross. The Cross represents Judgment and Mercy, both.
If we don’t accept the Judgment we are rejecting the Mercy. There is a mandate to believe and accept.
Unless we ‘believe’ we will die in our sins, and God is not unjust in establishing this prerequisite.
God is not unjust, or unloving to either punish or forgive, or to kill, because we were given a warning and a choice, to believe or not.
For some it seems hard to reconcile. I don’t think it is difficult at all. God said we have a choice, the choice is just, and the choice is fair, it establishes freedom, it ensures truth, sincerity, and allows love to be love purely of choice.

If someone wants to harm or attack someone else – they are making a choice. They are warned; they can stop, but if they refuse - the loving thing to do is 'help the victim' at that point. Being patient, promoting peace, loving everyone, modeling goodness, this is all Christ like, but so is warning of Judgment. God clearly emphasizes warning. And warning after warning that He will 'eventually' act, that is 'why' the there is a warning. ‘Stop’ what you are doing, repent, page after page of warnings that the soul who sins will die. Love will not let an abuser abuse, or 'prefer' a killer rather than to defend the innocent. That is the whole reason God is opposed to sin, it abuses and kills. I feel it is a serious mistake to confuse the two ideals. The Jews did just that when they let Barabbas live, and put Jesus to death.

I am out of time, but on enemies; just as Christians think of love in too 'wide a scale', they do the same for enemies. I can’t ‘really’ love people I don’t know, and I can’t ‘really’ have a true enemy unless they at least know me from Adam. Once we reduce this to a people we know or have seen, then we can proceed with this (in previous civilizations people generally were less anonymous).
I have had enemies here and there, and have learned that through prayer my mind changes toward them and they become then ‘people who see things differently’ (my attitude), angry maybe, but not an enemies in my mind. The effect of this is generally a quick resolution of the problem. And I can say at this time I have very few enemies (I hope).
Friends? Friends are those who share life with me, I try not to throw that term around to loosely, gotta go hope some of this made sense…

[Michelle]

Hi Michelle, you seem sincere so I was not sure if when you said on the previous page; that you ‘never knew a woman should expect a man to protect her’. I was not sure, why not? My male friends don’t ‘expect’ me to protect them, but I would (if i felt like it, just joking).
The fairer members in our family could confess they 'expect' the men to defend them, I would hope so. I hope this didn’t sound Chauvinistic, we are not, and the women around here do know a bit of effective self-defense for sure and are nobody to mess with. But still, why do they always expect me to go check outside when they hear a strange noise…?

I AM sincere when I say that I never knew women expect men to protect them -- it really just never occurred to me. Most of my life I've been single and independent. I've never considered whether my life would be safer if I had a husband to protect me. I want to ask other women, and maybe I will sometime when I have time. I did google "women want men to protect them" and sure enough, some women do confess this.

Anyways, Love truly is a many splendored thing; as wide as the ocean and deep as the sea’ but I am focusing on this context of judicial justice, and love.
The definition of Love seems to be at the root of the Universalist argument, and it seems to be at the root here also.
I see love as depicted in the Cross. The Cross represents Judgment and Mercy, both.
If we don’t accept the Judgment we are rejecting the Mercy. There is a mandate to believe and accept.
Unless we ‘believe’ we will die in our sins, and God is not unjust in establishing this prerequisite.
God is not unjust, or unloving to either punish or forgive, or to kill, because we were given a warning and a choice, to believe or not.
For some it seems hard to reconcile. I don’t think it is difficult at all. God said we have a choice, the choice is just, and the choice is fair, it establishes freedom, it ensures truth, sincerity, and allows love to be love purely of choice.

So...love is judgement plus mercy?

If someone wants to harm or attack someone else – they are making a choice. They are warned; they can stop, but if they refuse - the loving thing to do is 'help the victim' at that point. Being patient, promoting peace, loving everyone, modeling goodness, this is all Christ like, but so is warning of Judgment. God clearly emphasizes warning. And warning after warning that He will 'eventually' act, that is 'why' the there is a warning. ‘Stop’ what you are doing, repent, page after page of warnings that the soul who sins will die. Love will not let an abuser abuse, or 'prefer' a killer rather than to defend the innocent. That is the whole reason God is opposed to sin, it abuses and kills. I feel it is a serious mistake to confuse the two ideals. The Jews did just that when they let Barabbas live, and put Jesus to death.

I'll need more time to figure out what you're saying here. What I think it is at this moment is this: delivering the innocent from being attacked is the greater love.

I am out of time, but on enemies; just as Christians think of love in too 'wide a scale', they do the same for enemies. I can’t ‘really’ love people I don’t know, and I can’t ‘really’ have a true enemy unless they at least know me from Adam. Once we reduce this to a people we know or have seen, then we can proceed with this (in previous civilizations people generally were less anonymous).

If I'm understanding you here, a stranger who suddenly appears and threatens to kill you is not your enemy because he's a stranger. Therefore, Jesus' command to love our enemies does not apply. In that case, there's no need to warn and warn, right? You don't have to love this guy, so judgment and mercy can be neglected.

I have had enemies here and there, and have learned that through prayer my mind changes toward them and they become then ‘people who see things differently’ (my attitude), angry maybe, but not an enemies in my mind. The effect of this is generally a quick resolution of the problem. And I can say at this time I have very few enemies (I hope).
Friends? Friends are those who share life with me, I try not to throw that term around to loosely, gotta go hope some of this made sense…

This made sense. Your enemies don't become your friends; you might be angry with them, but they get the warnings, judgments, and mercy.

JR, I've got to admit to you intrigue me. Your views on so many things are contrary to what I've been accustomed to hearing from Christians. You seem to view the world as a horrible place and to view mankind in an 'us vs. them' way. You seem violent and a little excited when thinking about people being destroyed. But, then, I'm not sure if that's because you don't come across as you really are. Your writing is long winded, filled with strange and idiosyncratic grammar, and your logic is, well, illogical at times. I wonder if you'd be much more affable in face-to-face conversation. Do you really think that most of mankind lusts for murder and that it is better all around for them to be destroyed?

[jriccitelli]

You seem violent…

I keep getting these ad hominem accusations, and it seems like I have to defend my character from being intentionally slandered.
I have had 4 or 5 different people here make overt statements implying that I am mean or calloused just because of my biblical position. Rather than dealing with the subject, I get instead; ‘you write long posts - you do not understand - you don't know what is being debated - you don’t listen enough - your mental furniture is the wrong color - your grammar is wrong - your grandmother is bald – etc – etc'. Tell me this is not a smoke screen. I know what I’m writing, I know the subject and I know my bible. I generally get complimented and kudos for my writing style, except 'here'. Could it be because you ‘don’t agree', rather than my style and prose (Still, this is an online ‘bible’ forum, I certainly haven’t criticized anyone’s personality, character or writing style). My posts are long because I ‘can’ answer a number of objections, and there are a diverse number of angles presented by the myriad of beliefs represented here. What kills me is these personal assumptions that I would rather ignore, except for the fact that it proves how wrong they are. Yes you are completely wrong.
I have never been violent, I don’t even seem violent (I have no visible tattoos). I can’t even believe you said that.
My wife and family generally have to defend me because I am so nice, meaning the accusations I’m accustomed to are; (apparently) I am way too polite, too positive, too happy, tip to large, wave too many people to cut in front of me, work too hard, do way more for customers than I’m paid to do, pay paid help too much, let grandchildren beat me up, etc, I even have a cute little lap dog on my lap as we speak.

… you seem to view the world as a horrible place and to view mankind in an us vs. them way’
… and a little excited about thinking about people being destroyed’
… Do you really think that most of mankind lusts for murder and that it is better all around for them to be destroyed?

I do not know if I should answer for fear of being long winded or using bad grammar. Maybe I don’t understand your position? Maybe I don’t know what is being debated.

[jriccitelli]

So...love is judgement plus mercy?

We can’t just ‘love’ without discernment and caution, loving everything without reason or care would be disastrous. If a married man decides to love all women like his wife, he might invite them all home. If a mother loved every child like her own, she might go to the local store and gather up all the children and take them all home. Using good judgment is the same when deciding a child may be receiving too much of something not beneficial. Love requires judgment and balance, so how do you discern when love is 'not' loving, or balanced?
You learn discernment from God, what do you do when two women claim the same child is their own? What do you do when you love two children equally and one of them hits the other child square over the head with a Tonka truck, cutting open the child’s head severely? You have to use discernment and discipline that child (not outlaw Tonka trucks). As adults, people are accountable for actions against others, adults know better than to assault someone. I do not see why this is hard to make sense of; the attacker is making a decision to harm – and most violent people are fully aware of the consequences.
We have to consider all our biblical principles together, not neglecting justice ‘and’ mercy.
I put Justice, love, mercy, and righteousness into my computer bible, and one search reveals a hundred verses where mercy and justice and such are linked together. I am only posting a few;

For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others’ (Matt 23:23)
Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah saying "Thus has the LORD of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; (Zechariah 7:7)
There are those who turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground' (Amos 5:7)
Hate evil, love good, And establish justice in the gate! Perhaps the LORD God of hosts May be gracious to the remnant of Joseph (Amos 5:15)
Therefore, return to your God, Observe kindness and justice, And wait for your God continually. (Hosea 12:6)
Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him. (Isaiah 30:18)...

[Michelle]

I keep getting these ad hominem accusations, and it seems like I have to defend my character from being intentionally slandered.
I have had 4 or 5 different people here make overt statements implying that I am mean or calloused just because of my biblical position. Rather than dealing with the subject, I get instead; ‘you write long posts - you do not understand - you don't know what is being debated - you don’t listen enough - your mental furniture is the wrong color - your grammar is wrong - your grandmother is bald – etc – etc'.

I'm not accusing you or slandering you. I attempted to say that this is how you seem, and that I have a suspicion that you aren't really the way you come off in your writing here.

Tell me this is not a smoke screen.

This is not a smoke screen.

I know what I’m writing, I know the subject and I know my bible.

Okay

I generally get complimented and kudos for my writing style, except 'here'.

Okay. It must be me then because roughly one third of your writing is incomprehensible to me. Also, I have to re-read every sentence where you use scare quotes (like this very one) because my mind automatically looks for the irony or sarcasm. But, again, maybe that's my shortcoming.

Could it be because you ‘don’t agree', rather than my style and prose (Still, this is an online ‘bible’ forum, I certainly haven’t criticized anyone’s personality, character or writing style).

Well, see, the thing is that I think I agree with you on a lot of things -- you know, we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. I even share your conviction on conditional immortality. Even on this question you've at least made me ponder quite a bit. I really wish I could understand you better. (If my personality or writing style needs polishing, I wish people would criticize it. But, once more, that's me.)

My posts are long because I ‘can’ answer a number of objections, and there are a diverse number of angles presented by the myriad of beliefs represented here.

I want to answer this, but I'm not sure how. One thing: verbosity does not prove capability.

What kills me is these personal assumptions that I would rather ignore, except for the fact that it proves how wrong they are.

This is one of those sentences that confuse me. At least I get that it kills you (metaphorically) that I've made assumptions based on what you've written. What it is that proves how wrong they are is....?

Yes you are completely wrong.

I thought so.

I have never been violent, I don’t even seem violent (I have no visible tattoos).

Tattoos....what?

I can’t even believe you said that.

JR, I was going to post a list of statements from you that gave me the impression that you had a taste for violence, but as I was searching for quotes I remembered from you, I found this:

You also cannot 'equate' defensive actions and necessary lethal defensive means - with violence.

This statement of yours makes me see why you can't believe I said that. I DO equate defensive actions and necessary lethal defensive means with violence. Why shouldn't I? You apparently don't however. I'm going to infer then that violence to you means what the other guy is doing in a fight...the other guy being the aggressor. If that's correct, then I apologize. I don't believe you are aggressive.

My wife and family generally have to defend me because I am so nice, meaning the accusations I’m accustomed to are; (apparently) I am way too polite, too positive, too happy, tip to large, wave too many people to cut in front of me, work too hard, do way more for customers than I’m paid to do, pay paid help too much, let grandchildren beat me up, etc, I even have a cute little lap dog on my lap as we speak.

Okay, then.

… you seem to view the world as a horrible place and to view mankind in an us vs. them way’
… and a little excited about thinking about people being destroyed’
… Do you really think that most of mankind lusts for murder and that it is better all around for them to be destroyed?
I do not know if I should answer for fear of being long winded or using bad grammar. Maybe I don’t understand your position? Maybe I don’t know what is being debated.

My position is that Jesus died for all sinners. He also taught us to love our enemies. I have no plans about how I will deal with rapists, intruders, or murderous rampagers who attack me. I figure that God will guide me at that moment just as he always has. I do know, in advance, that I would rather die than kill, but if someone was threatening another person, I'm not so sure. Neither do I condemn any believer who has used deadly force to protect himself or any other person. I even believe that there are many wonderful Christians in law enforcement and the military. I'm sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding them, as well. As you can see, I'm conflicted, therefore this discussion has been of keen interest to me.

[jriccitelli]

Thank you for your reply Michelle. And I apologize Michelle, I did not mean ‘you’ were setting the smoke screen.
I really do love life, I am overtly optimistic about life and people, but I am painfully aware of what lurks in the heart of men, being one myself. I do not know why some men choose to do good and others choose to do evil, I have often sat with both at lunch. Not overtly bad guys, but I do know some guys could give a rats --- about goodness or others, given an opportunity for sin. They just love sin more than God.

Violence is a difficult term for sure, but from experience, I see violent as an attitude. Violent meaning aggressive, angry, volatile, etc. Back in the day (BC), I use to hang out with a couple of friends who were bouncers, and although they were large tough guys, they were very easy going and actually very peaceful. During the course of the night you kept your eyes open for loud and disturbing patrons, which may later be angry or troublesome, my friends never became mad, angry or upset, they calmly approached the upset angry visitor and politely ‘ask them outside’ the option was always the patrons.
My friends never had any ill feelings toward the patron, it even made us sad for the guy that would mess up what could have been a fun evening for himself and friends, simply because of a stupid attitude.
No matter where you have people you have a chance someone is going to be a troublemaker.
A tough takedown is not pretty, and firing a gun at someone is a horrible if not violent scene, but the violence can be solely the responsibility of the attacker. An officer may have to fire a weapon even though ‘he has no anger, hostility, or violence in his heart’. It is just a sad state of affairs for the person who has allowed himself to get so bad that even loving people have to stop him. This is true for lesser crimes, and so it shouldn’t stop us because the crime being committed is of a far worse degree.
The trouble maker is not necessarily an enemy, and law enforcement is not generally angry or upset.

So when a person decides to commit a crime, my sympathies and compassion are for him, but when they make a decision to attack an innocent person ‘we’ have to make a decision, and a discerning compassionate judgment to defend the innocent party has to be the right choice.
Sure I am concerned with the aggressors eternal position with God (that is why I do evangelism), but since there ‘is’ an post mortem existence isn’t it right to hand an abusive person over to God, rather than to hand over an innocent person 'in this situation'?
God commands us to discern right from wrong, and as Christians we have the Spirit to lead us to what is right. I feel it is unGodly to let the innocent party suffer the wrong of abuse.

The command to ‘love your enemies and pray for them’ means just that. We have to balance this wisdom with the wisdom to reject ‘all out violence’ and protect the innocent.
The command to ‘turn the cheek’ means just that. Allow harm to be done to you, but Jesus doesn’t say any and all degrees of harm. Discernment was not meant to be thrown out the window, Jesus did not say ‘never’ defend yourself, and Jesus never said you shall ‘not’ defend neighbor family or friend from abuse.

In its purest form, how could this mean; allow someone to hit your child?
If we can discern that Jesus is ‘not’ saying allow someone to hit your child, doesn’t it follow that he must not be saying turn the cheek to even greater degrees of abuse towards others?

(I agree, that was long winded)

[Michelle]

JR, I was plowing though your definition of love when this latest post on the definition of violence appeared. As much as I wish you would be briefer, maybe you should attach a "definitions of terms" before you launch into explanations of your beliefs -- it might make deciphering much less time consuming.

You see violence as a state of mind; one that is angry, volatile, aggressive, etc. With that definition in mind, the Boston bombers were not violent. The younger one even returned to his dorm and partied. He was so laid-back that his fellow students have had trouble believing that he was even AT the Boston Marathon, let alone the perpetrator of a ghastly crime. Yet, I'm sure if you ask the scores of victims missing one or more limbs, or if you interview the parents and loved ones of those who died, they would absolutely say that the brothers were violent, and perpetrated violence. Your definition does not satisfy me, but now I see more clearly why you bristled at my comment about you and violence.

jriccitelli, I understand your position - you've certainly repeated it enough times, so I'm going to back out of this conversation now.

Blessings!

[jriccitelli]

‘I wish you would be briefer, maybe you should attach a "definitions of terms" before you launch into explanations of your beliefs-- it might make deciphering much less time consuming

I also wish pacifists could see the difference quicker, 'that' would save a lot of time. I cannot believe a person would ‘have’ to define the difference between stopping violence and perpetrating violence (?!).

The 'intent' of the bombers was evil, and violence.
I am sure there are crimes committed by such depraved maniacs that even smile, or have no emotion at all. The only reason the perpetrator was able to ‘appear’ calm was because he ‘thought’ he got away with it. The only reason detonating a bomb ‘appeared’ unaggressive is because it had a timer on it. The bombers were also 'inspired by violent ideology'. Are pacifists equating defense with intent to do violence? Does the pacifist definition of violence equate stopping someone who’s intent is to do harm, with someone trying to protect an innocent victim?

I 'have' asked the simple question 'enough' already; How do you suggest a person stop a violent attacker? (This is a serious question, and a serious situation, and the best answer I got was; be creative)

The violent person is the one instigating violence. The bombers had violent intent. A person who is non violent, should not be defined as violent because they are forced to defend an innocent person, out of love for the victim.

“Your definition does not satisfy me, but now I see more clearly why you bristled at my comment about you and violence”

You assumed I was violent, I responded because you were wrong.
Does being a pacifist mean you can assume untruthful things about someone and then blame them for explaining and setting the record straight? Does ‘my’ definition of violence, mean you were correct in your evaluation of 'me'?
Didn’t Jesus continually refer to the heart as being the thing controlling our actions?
(Don’t respond again by saying you don’t ‘understand’. Someone could easily write off everybody’s post as illogical just because they do not agree)