Kenneson:
I’m trying to approach this subject from someone’s (perhaps mine as well) gut perspective (naked faith) of what could be an identifying mark of true individual Christians that ironically happens to be expressed through an organization that stands between (as in obstructs) Christ and his members. It could either be an objectionable “wonderful work” (Matthew 7:22-23) or an identifying mark of people who are unwittingly Christian in their conduct a la Matthew 25:35-40 (Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee?)
In this perspective it is the end result and the sincere motivation of love that counts, whether originating from a Quaker or a Jdub. Whatever other beliefs are professed by such persons about a war-killing God are harmless and inconsequential, however right or wrong they might turn out to be. Besides, Christ is said to have turned the other cheek, and is said to have admonished his followers to love their enemies.
Admittedly, I’m in a tight corner here, judging by the answers I am getting here. This is where Narkissos saves my ass, as he – as usual - concisely phrases where my (friends) position originates from: The post-WW II European pacifist perspective. The indelible experience of war and racism ensuing from nineteenth-century nationalism and war. German Christians ended up fighting for what were perceived as just wars from 1870 onwards. They ended up on the wrong side of the (ultimately concentration camp) fence. My dads Catholic cousins were proud of their Hitler Jugend uniforms, raised as they were with their anti British and anti Communist sentiments. My dads uncle served in the Waffen SS in Russia. To them, fighting the commies was just, as it was later on to the Americans in Korea and Vietnam (Kissinger did some orchestrating there). Enlisting in the army, one did not have the option of ticking a box for either A. Auschwitz B. Stalingrad or C. the Western Allies. So I am a bit apprehensive as to the validity of defending your country or cause.
Here in the Netherlands, at the war memorial on Liberation Day 5th of May (Holland was mainly liberated by Canadians, so thank you Jgnat). Jehovahs Witnesses are often mentioned in the official speeches. A disproportionate 110.000 Jews never returned to the Netherlands, and Jdubs somehow were spared sharing the shame of my dads family. WW II contributed to both sets of my grandparents becoming JWs.
Narkissos: “really grounded on individual conscience, not the rules of an organization imposed to its members under social penalty.” This indeed negates the value of the average, individual JWs neutrality stance. A strong argument.
Jgnat:
Who do we need to use swords against? Bully Saddam H who was armed and created by a Western sword industry doing the dirty work of killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians by proxy? Who decides who are the bullies? At one time the Russians thought the bullies were NATO and NATO thought the bullies were in the USSR. You will get caught up in a political matrix doing politicians dirty work. Vietnam vets and thousands of Dutch casualties in post WW II Indonesia will confirm this.
M.J.
Yes, self defense is clearly defined until the worms crawl out of the can. That’s where you’re bound to end up.
Gumby:
Christians could have taken up arms to defend themselves against persecution. No Pax Romana there. They did not take up arms. Perhaps a single battle can be noble, not a whole war. Even Gandhi understood the merits of non-violence.
Metatron:
We are talking from the perspective of a Christian – true or not. From your perspective I could perhaps agree. But I won’t. Why use war instead of preventative measures of social justice for solving problems in Congo or Darfur? It is all politics. They failed horribly in Rwanda. Why get caught up in it.
Auldsoul:
The identifying mark of Jesus' disciples is love. This could in a rudimentary way be applied to abstinence of war. I agree, the only way in which love can be demonstrated is individually, not the rules of an organization imposed to its members under social penalty. So your logic works for me? I’m not so sure about your contrasting of organization vs individual. There is a lot of talk in Christianity of body and congregation. Besides, I am not defending an organization. It is about group of sincere peace loving individuals who through their actions could also be shunned or hated by society in general. Like my friend, me or Narkissos, this could be cause for - at one time or another - identifying with a part of Christianity which happens to occur within an organization.
VG
