Pacifism and Reality

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!