Numerous recent discussions with some of my closest friends have repeatedly concerned the topic of pacifism. It is no wonder to me that this view is enjoying a revival of sorts. Myth of a Christian Nation deals largely with it. And I think that it is good that the discussion is reemerging. (Perhaps I am just being re-introduced to it.) Evangelical Christians have not helped the kingdom of God by taking (on the whole) what appears to be a radical pro-war stance which is Zionistic and not consistent with Christian values.
However, I think the pacifist view has a few weaknesses. I've dealt with those in earlier posts, but I wanted to throw out a few responses to comments made by a friend of mine in a discussion on pacifism recently.
The central idea (as I can tell) to the Christian pacifist viewpoint is Jesus' claim that his kingdom is not of this world--else his servants would fight! What is drawn from this, and from the command to love our enemies, is that Christians are not called to fight--that's worldly kingdom thinking. And, from the point of view of the role of the church and the method of evangelism the church is to use, I think it is relevant to discuss this. But is this teaching in all cases relevant to the Christian's attitude toward civil government?
In our discussion, I (again) threw out the topic of the holocaust. In the early 40's of the last century, Hitler's Germany was mercilessly slaughtering millions of people. The question is, "Is this not a justified reason to enter a war--even as a Christian called to love his enemy?" One of my friends asked the question recently, "Do you think when Jesus said to 'love your enemy' he meant we shouldn't drop bombs on them?" The sarcasm of the comment implies that war is a direct contradiction to the teaching of Christ. However, I asked my friend a few days ago, "Yes, we are commanded to love our enemy. But we're also commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves. So, what do I do when my enemy is trying to kill my neighbor?" I ask, "Do you think when Jesus said to love our neighbor, we should be concerned that they not be murdered?"
The answer I bumped into that evening is the same one I've found in similar discussions. It is that "You can always argue some exception to the rule, but we don't develop theology based on these exceptions." In other words: the reality is that WWII is the anomoly, and the rule is much easier to apply in every day life. However, I think the pacifist forgets that the doctrine of pacifism has inherent practical implications. OF COURSE, the first thing someone who does not subscribe to pacifism is going to say when approached is, "So, how do I put this into practice?" Is it really such a rare thing that a Christian must decide whether to go to war? In reality, it is doubtful whether any generation in the last two hundred years (maybe ever) has NOT had to wrestle with this question. So, I don't think the pacifist escapes the practical consequences of his viewpoint by arguing that pacifism's practicality is irrelevant. Violent situations do happen and it is up to the pacifist to explain how his view is rightly lived out in light of real-world conflicts.
Also, I think the pacifist muddies the water by referring to Jesus' statement that the kingdom of God is not of this world. Here is how: when Jesus refers to the kingdom of God, it is a reference to the church--not the nation! (Thanks, Greg Boyd--though I'm not sure you'd like the conclusion I'm drawing.) And Paul also stated that government is ordained by God to bear the sword. There seems to be an implication that human government has the God-ordained responsibility to utilize violence in order to protect the welfare of the public. Keeping in mind that Jesus' indictment regarding the kingdom of God is specifically about the church, it would seem that there is a difference between the attitude Christians take regarding the role of the church in the world, and the attitude we might rightly take in participating in violence in civil matters. I think this is a much better way to understand the instances in the New Testament in which Roman soldiers come to belief in Christ, yet no mention is made of their abandonment of their posts. Even the NT reveals a paradox on the issue--perhaps reality in theology lies somewhere between the poles of conservative zionist warhawk and pacifism?
It seems to me that the church's role is a counter-cultural phenomenon--but one which operates within culture. New Testament teaching is not polar, it is paradoxical. Our job is to discover the proper balance.
I welcome responses from some of my friends on this issue!
9.06.2007
Pacifism and Reality
Posted by Jason at 3:25 PM
Labels: justified war, kingdom of God, pacifism, paradox
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This isn't necessarily a response, but maybe it is...
We are left to resort to violence because of a very distracted/reactive attitude in the church. Why is the world prone to such violence? What about lust, greed, hate, and pride. Especially the greed for power and wealth. We see such situations causing exploitation and reactionary retribution.
But what if the church were to get involved in these places now? What if we called for these to stop. Not from our homes, but from the battlefields, the sweatshops, the slave houses?
But no, we rather sit back in our homes until the uprising becomes so noxious that it will take a bomb and guns to "clean" it up.
Violence is so mindnumbingly borish. I oppress someone, they rise us, I crush you. How long must we beat and blow each other up? It seems that the message and example of Christ is the carry the cross, to identify with the victimized, without becoming one that redundantly continues the cycle by in turn victimizing the victimizing (oppressing the oppressor).
What we need is to turn the cheek, walk the mile, get naked. These were truly creative. These brought shame to the oppressor without oppressing. These brought humanity to those being dehumanized.
This is how the kingdom of heaven invades.
Scott,
Of course, you know how much I respect you and your thoughts on things. And it pains me to be so blunt with your comments. However, I don’t think you truly responded to what I’m saying. If there is a mandate from God for governments to utilize violence to protect society, how does one hold to a pacifistic viewpoint? How does this work in real life? I hate to say it, but you’re really generalizing in this response.
I mean, a lot of people have been asking “why is there so much violence” in the world, and I think the answer is simple: “because there are some pretty evil people who do some pretty evil things. And other people (whether they are right or wrong to do so is the question) respond to that with violence.
It seems like a lot of pacifist answers have been similar to “if the church would do it’s job, then there wouldn’t be violence.” You said, “But what if the church were to get involved in these places now? What if we called for these to stop. Not from our homes, but from the battlefields, the sweatshops, the slave houses?” This strikes me as a little naïve. While I agree that Christians should be working to counter the effects of evil things in the world, the question remains: “When war is inevitable (as governments wage it) what is the appropriate Christian position?” There has to be a better answer than “give peace a chance.”
Also, to say “violence is boorish” is irrelevant. How we feel about violence is not what’s at stake. What is right and wrong about it is. Also, I think you’re dismissing the experiences of a lot of people. “I oppress someone, they rise up, I crush you…” For those of us who have never been “oppressed,” I think we owe those who have a little respect. When we see oppression, and the horrible things that happen because of it, it’s too late to talk about how boorish it is. Sometimes we just need to do something to stop the little children from being hurt. “Violence is boorish?” Violence happens. Rape happens. Murder happens. What do we do when it does?
We are to “get naked,” yes—as the church. But the nation is not the church. But if governments have a biblical mandate to utilize violence to protect society, doesn’t that imply some justification for war?
These are the questions I’m trying to get my pacifist friends to answer:
“What do I do when my enemy is trying to kill my neighbor?”
“Violent situations do happen and it is up to the pacifist to explain how his view is rightly lived out in light of real-world conflicts.”
“There seems to be an implication that human government has the God-ordained responsibility to utilize violence in order to protect the welfare of the public. Keeping in mind that Jesus' indictment regarding the kingdom of God is specifically about the church, it would seem that there is a difference between the attitude Christians take regarding the role of the church in the world, and the attitude we might rightly take in participating in violence in civil matters.”
I think those statements are worth more reflection from the pacifist viewpoint.
Jason
My question would be this when my enemy is trying to kill my neighbor at what point is my enemy also my neighbor. Jesus calls us to love not only our neighbor but also our enemy thereby putting them in the same category. So when we opress the opressors are we then no better and have learned nothing from the original situation. And if it is being naive to say that we need to be involved in places to stop violence before it happens then I am happy to be in that category. We have seen throughout the outcome of violence and it eventually leads to more oppression of someone. Maybe the problem we have with pacifistic ideas is that it goes against all that has been ingrained in us throughout our life. And I have been wrestling with these ideas for years now and just as you need questions answered there is one that I need answered aswell. I know Jesus said to love our neighbor but he also said to love our enemy and Paul says to repay the one who does evil to you to repay that one with good. How do I do accomplish either one of those things through bombs or bloodshed.
Tom,
I'm sitting here with Brian Hill and we were talking about your post and he made a good comment. What you're looking for is a theocracy. The teaching of the New Testament, which neither of my pacifist friends have addressed, is that government has a responsibility to utilize violence to protect its people and the church is not to use violence to promote its agenda. Still, no pacifists are talking about that. Why do you expect the government to submit to the rules of the church?
You answered the question to "what do I do when my enemy is attacking my neighbor" by not answering the question. Tom, what do I DO when my enemy is attacking my neighbor? I know I should love my enemy, but should I stop him from hurting my neighbor and how far should I go?
The lines are not as clear as you guys are assuming they are!
Jason
I'm not talking about a theocracy at all, my point is how can I as a Christian be involved in killing and oppression and still love my enemy and I think it is a complicated issue but we seem to be coming from different directions. And I admit I don't have the answer to your question but you have also not answered mine and there lies the problem. Which is why I have to follow my conscience which for me leads me to a viewpoint of non-violence. And I have found and heard nothing to sway me from that. All I have heard is how do you love your neighbor and allow evil to happen to him yet no answer to how do I love my enemy and allow evil to happen to him.
OK, now I think we're getting somewhere!
I think the answer to your question is in defining what we mean by "loving your enemy." Does that mean allowing him anything he wants? I think it means caring for his welfare and being willing to lay down MY life for him, the way Christ did! However, loving him does not always mean that I will be able to save him from the consequences of his own free choices. For instance, if my neighbor chooses to commit a crime that carries with it a violent punishment, there is nothing I can do when he is caught and must suffer those consequences, other than attempt to approach him with the message of the gospel.
The point is, God loves each person, but allows them to suffer the consequences of their actions! So must I. That having been said, if my enemy (who I love and want the best for) chooses freely to hurt my neighbor (who has done no wrong to him), I am in a DILEMMA. I've been posing this to you for a purpose--in a dilemma, you're put in a position in which there is no answer that you like--but you must still choose. And I think the answer is fairly clear--my love for God, my neighbor, and my enemy means I must follow my conscience. I respect that you are moved to non-violence. I am moved to assist the person who I deem to be the least responsible for the action (my neighbor--the victim), because I cannot save my enemy from the consequences of his own actions.
I think both of us are motivated by love, our conscience, and our interpretation of scripture. But I think my view is fairer to the victim.
What I've resented in the discussion is the attitude I've run into (not necessarily from you and Scott) that anyone who doesn't adhere to this version of pacifism is simply prone to violence and not willing to love his neighbor or is ignoring the teaching of Christ and scripture. That just isn't true! I'm very much into Christ, turning the other cheek, and loving my enemy. But sometimes love puts us in difficult positions and we must choose.
P.S. I also think my view does a better job harmonizing New Testament teaching about violence and the Kingdom of God. I see the current evangelical zionist viewpoint and your pacifism being far too polar--neither finding the real balance of scripture or addressing the paradox presented in the New Testament.
P.P.S. How does non-violence mesh with football and wrestling? :)
Wrestling and football are peaceloving activities and if you don't agree I will crush you.... I mean I'll give you a hug. And I do greatly respect and value your opinions on this it is not a definite black and white issue and I hope that I haven't presented it that way. I have respect for those who go off to fight for their respective country that is a hard decision to make. I have great respect for the choices Brian and others have made in that area. I don't necessarily agree with those choices but I am not going to hold my convictions as the be all end all either. I hope I haven't presented my views that way I did not intend to. Except I do see your "But I think my view is fairer to the victim." and " also think my view does a better job harmonizing New Testament teaching about violence and the Kingdom of God" and raise you a I think my view is the official God ordained view, the view that perfectly lines up with scripture and is so absolutly inseperable from the view point of God that it should be engraved in gold on buildings throughout the world. It is as if God himself sent an angel to me to help me translate and understand the wonderful words and ideas so that they would be perfect...oh wait that was Joseph Smith.....uhm.....nevermind
Touché! I don't think it's necessarily important that we change each other's minds as much as work together to keep each other's minds open and sharp. That's what I've enjoyed about the relationships I've built with people here at CCCB.
By the way, "I think my view is more consistent with the fundamental doctrines of true theology as inspired by the Holy Spirit, recorded by the authors of scripture, interpreted by the church fathers, passed on by the saints, forgotten by the pacifists, and reinstated through my devotion to truth, intellectual honesty, clear logical thinking, and all-around brilliance."
(Just kidding!)
well done!
Post a Comment