Christian Pacifism

by Defender 13 Replies latest jw friends

Defender

While there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of Cornelius and others, I believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest Christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.
Cornelius’ example is brought out to show that Peter did not demand that Cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his Christian faith and anointing of the Holy Spirit.
1- The record does not show what Cornelius did after his conversion.
2- We have to remember that after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ that would direct the actions of Cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what Peter or others say.
3- Roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied. Cornelius was probably more likely involved in “policing” duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position. By the way, this same condition applies to the “soldiers” that John the Baptist admonished. Jewish soldiers during Herod’s time were most of the time used as local police and that is why John had asked them to be content and fair and not falsely accuse someone, something that a war fighting soldier would not have to contend with.
In today’s modern states, there are armies which are strictly used in fighting wars, and there are separate forces that act as local police. Such distinction was not that obvious in ancient nations and as a matter of fact, it is not that obvious in some modern third world countries as well.
Self Defense
While it is biblically clear that a person should take necessary precautions and actions in defending himself and his family or household from criminals, robbers, etc, even wild animals, it also shows some remarkable differentiation and limits in this aspect.
1- Jesus had initially instructed his disciples to carry swords in their ministry for the purpose of defending themselves against highway robbers and criminals. However, when the issue was that they are being attacked BECAUSE they are Christians or carrying out the Lord’s work, then the record show that they DID NOT defend themselves. This is in line with Jesus’ own experience the night he was delivered.
2- The experience of the Apostles in Acts and the also the Apostle Paul and most early Christians indicate that when they were attacked because of the Word, they DID NOT defend themselves or their families.
3- What about the case of a malicious army invading the area or the country that a Christian is living in; should not the love of family and neighbor compel a Christian to take arms and fight in a group based self defense?
Again, the biblical precedent of the time of the attack and final destruction of Jerusalem 66-70 AD gives clear indication that Christians fled Jerusalem and the surrounding area and did not participate in any national defense against the invading Roman army which left complete destruction in its quake. Remembering also, that back then they did not have the luxury of the Geneva Convention, war crimes tribunals, etc. Those early Christians had left their countrymen and some presumably close friends and families that had not accepted faith in Jesus to be starved and killed in the hundreds of thousands without lifting a sword in their defense. Does this show that they had no love? Definitely not! For they were simply following their Master’s counsel to abandon the area and also his admonition that “My kingdom is not of this world.” In fact, had they participated in any defense action against the Roman army, they too would have perished. Thus, by following Jesus’ counsel, they have acted most successfully in actually defending themselves.
If there is a national reason to defend ones country against naked aggression, it is the Roman invasion of the Palestine and Judea area which was for no other reason than the gratification of the Roman Empire in its quest for global conquest. Yet, here we find that Christians DID NOT participate in any action to stop, limit or defeat this aggression. In line with this, then sincere Christians would not find it in themselves to lift up arms to fight against national aggression, whether it is Nazism, Communism, Americanism, Islamist or any other form for the simple reason that “Our kingdom is not of this world.”
dungbeetle

A nice post, Defender ---BUT...
In the case of many religions, it isn't even about bearing arms. Anyone who has been in the trneches knows that if someone isn't going to use his weapon, you don't want them in the foxhole with you.
The problem is two things:
1)Do certain activities such as growing vegetables and mending clothes for soldiers constitute 'bearing arms' (Watchtower says/said it does).
2)And if such activiites ARE a compromise of neutrality, what is the rganizational remedy? Expulsion? Shunning? Death?
I wish the problem was as simple as you made it seem. But it's a good start.
In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"
NeonMadman

I think the issue is less clear in the scriptures than it appears to you, though you do make several good points. I assume you are building your case strictly from a general scriptural standpoint, and not from the viewpoint of the Watchtower (i.e., that you are arguing for pacifism alone and not for complete political neutrality).
I am one of those who, in previous threads, have cited the case of Cornelius as an indication that Christians might serve in the armed forces of the nation to which they belong. While it is true that we are not told the course of Cornelius' career after his becoming a Christian, I feel that that lack of information is informative in itself. If some change had occurred which reflected an important principle, I am inclined to think that it would have been included in the narrative. In at least some other cases, such as at Acts 19:19, we are told of actions that Christians took to clean out bad practices from their lives. I find it hard to imagine that if being a soldier was something that a Christian ought not to do, that some mention of whatever change was made by Cornelius would not have been noted.
If you argue that Cornelius, as a centurion, was not truly the equivalent of a soldier, but more like the modern policeman, I think you are splitting hairs. When does a policeman, through his actions, become a soldier? Are you saying that it is all right for a Christian to employ violence, if necessary, to maintain order domestically, but cannot become involved if a foreign power is in the picture? Many policemen 'live by the sword' every bit as much as soldiers do, especially those working in violent, high-crime areas. If it is wrong for a Christian to serve as a soldier, then it would be very inconsistent to say that it is not just as wrong for him to serve as a policeman.
You argue:
Jesus had initially instructed his disciples to carry swords in their ministry for the purpose of defending themselves against highway robbers and criminals. However, when the issue was that they are being attacked BECAUSE they are Christians or carrying out the Lord’s work, then the record show that they DID NOT defend themselves.
I think that statement makes my case. Soldiers are not generally engaged in fighting because they are Christians. As you point out, if attacked by robbers and criminals, Christians are to defend themselves. Should this principle not apply on a national basis as well as individually?
As far as the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., this was, I think, a special case, in that the Christians had been specifically instructed by Jesus how they were to respond at that time. And, here again, I think that the exception proves the rule. If there were some general prohibition among Christians against fighting in wars, it would not have been necessary for Jesus to tell them not to do so in this case; they would have known anyway. But I think that practicality was at work here; Jesus knew that the Roman force would be overwhelming, that there would be no possibility of making a successful stand against it, and that if the Christians had tried to do so, they would have been wiped out to a man. He told them to flee because, without instruction, they might have tried to defend the city, and he knew that that would be both hopeless and fatal for them.
What about Jesus' remark that his followers would be 'no part of the world'? I think it is up to each one's conscience to determine where the line between the world and the Christian is drawn. The Watchtower's position, of course, is that Jesus meant to have no part in the political affairs of the world. But there is nothing in the context to indicate that he was talking about politics, and there are plenty of other scriptures that show that a Christian might have at least some stake in political affairs.
If we read John 17 in context, we find that Jesus is praying to his Father to protect his disciples in his absence from them, and he contrasts "the world" with those who have been "given to" him as his disciples. By calling them "no part of the world," he implies that they have forsaken all that the world has to offer to become disciples of Jesus. That doesn't mean that they didn't need to live in the world and perform its functions; they had to do work to earn a living, they had to rub elbows socially with non-believers, and, in some cases, they may have had some involvement with politics, and even with the conflicts of the world. But they no longer lived for the world; they now lived for Jesus.
Tom
"The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
aChristian

Defender,
You wrote: In line with this, [Christians did not fight to defend Jerusalem against Rome's armies in AD 66-70] then sincere Christians would not find it in themselves to lift up arms to fight against national aggression, whether it is Nazism, Communism, Americanism, Islamist or any other form for the simple reason that “Our kingdom is not of this world.”
Jesus specifically told his followers to "get out of" Jerusalem when they saw it "being surrounded by armies." (Luke 21:20,21) If they had stayed and fought against Rome in that instance they would have been disobeying a direct command from their Lord. Christ made it clear that it was God's will for Jerusalem to be completely destroyed. He said, "This is a time of punishement in fulfillment of all that has been written." (verse 23) Thus if Christians had fought against Rome they they would not only have been disobeying Christ, they would have been fighting against the clearly expressed will of God himself.
Jesus Christ has given Christians no direct command against defendeing themselves, their neighbors or their homelands against violent agressors today, comparable to the command he gave to Christians living in Jerusalem at the time Roman armies besieged that city. Because he has not, it is not fair to use the way in which those Christians behaved as a pattern which all "sincere Christians" must follow.
I believe we should not judge our brothers who choose to serve in the military. I believe that saying what "sincere Christians" would or "would not find it in themselves to" do in this area of Christian conscience amounts to judging our brothers, something which Christ did give Christians a direct command not to do.
Defender

dungbeetle
you said:
The problem is two things:
1)Do certain activities such as growing vegetables and mending clothes for soldiers constitute 'bearing arms' (Watchtower says/said it does).
2)And if such activiites ARE a compromise of neutrality, what is the rganizational remedy? Expulsion? Shunning? Death?
You are talking about alternative service and I feel that this is entirely the prerogative of personal conscience.
Neomadman
I feel that that lack of information is informative in itself. If some change had occurred which reflected an important principle.
I agree in that there is NO principle that dictates what a Christian should or should not do concerning membership in an armed service or indeed holding political office. However, there is some historical backing that Christians of the 1st and 2nd century did not ACTIVELY seek to join the Roman or any other Army. This is quite indicative, while many existing Roman soldiers, even including members of the Pretorian Guards did become Christians. What these converted soldiers did afterwards, the Bible is silent. I think that it became a matter of conscience of where they did draw a line as to how far they were going in be engaged in any armed conflict.
If you argue that Cornelius, as a centurion, was not truly the equivalent of a soldier, but more like the modern policeman, I think you are splitting hairs. When does a policeman, through his actions, become a soldier? Are you saying that it is all right for a Christian to employ violence, if necessary, to maintain order domestically, but cannot become involved if a foreign power is in the picture? Many policemen 'live by the sword' every bit as much as soldiers do, especially those working in violent, high-crime areas. If it is wrong for a Christian to serve as a soldier, then it would be very inconsistent to say that it is not just as wrong for him to serve as a policeman
Cornelius was a soldier by all the definitions of one. However, my argument was that at the time of his conversion he probably MAY have been egaged more in policing duties and thus did not feel compelled to abandon his position.
Concerning policework and whether a Christian can serve as a policeman, only his or her conscience can decide that and if it allows it, then only his or her conscience would dictate as to how much and how far they are prepared to go.
think that statement makes my case. Soldiers are not generally engaged in fighting because they are Christians. As you point out, if attacked by robbers and criminals, Christians are to defend themselves. Should this principle not apply on a national basis as well as individually?
I do not believe so. Criminal gangs and robbers hardly ever attack nations, they attack individuals. Whereas, only nations can attack other nations, albeit for whatever reasons, and thus becomes a national conflict and no longer mere self defense.
Jesus knew that the Roman force would be overwhelming, that there would be no possibility of making a successful stand against it, and that if the Christians had tried to do so, they would have been wiped out to a man. He told them to flee because, without instruction, they might have tried to defend the city, and he knew that that would be both hopeless and fatal for them.
What you say is that had Jesus followers been more numerous and well trained and equipped, then Jesus would have allowed them to make a stand against the invading Roman army. I hardly can envisage Jesus making such military strategic calculations on behalf of his followers. This is just out of character for Jesus. He is the one that said that he could have asked his father to send several legions of angels to protect him, would surely not be depending on any human strength and he had encouraged his followers not to do so.
aChristian
Jesus specifically told his followers to "get out of" Jerusalem when they saw it "being surrounded by armies." (Luke 21:20,21) If they had stayed and fought against Rome in that instance they would have been disobeying a direct command from their Lord. Christ made it clear that it was God's will for Jerusalem to be completely destroyed. He said, "This is a time of punishement in fulfillment of all that has been written." (verse 23) Thus if Christians had fought against Rome they they would not only have been disobeying Christ, they would have been fighting against the clearly expressed will of God himself.
That is very true. However, we can learn from Jesus own example of being completely neutral, even in a nation that was awaiting a messianic King and HE WAS THAT KING. He disappointed his countrymen time and again in refusing to take any part in the national debate of the time and that was "Obedience to Rome."
So, when Jesus followers abandoned Jerusalem and the surrounding, they were not simply obeying Jesus command, but they were aslo demonstrating the fact that their Kingdom is not of this world and therefore would not take any part in any armed national conflict.
Jesus Christ has given Christians no direct command against defendeing themselves, their neighbors or their homelands against violent agressors today, comparable to the command he gave to Christians living in Jerusalem at the time Roman armies besieged that city. Because he has not, it is not fair to use the way in which those Christians behaved as a pattern which all "sincere Christians" must follow.
Jesus did not give specific commands on many issues like homosexuality for example. Of course, we are in agreement as to how he viewed such practice. Clearly then, the context of Jesus message was emphasis on the kingdom. While Jesus followers were and still are living in the world, they would be no part of it.
Jesus did ask his disciples to carry swords on their first missionary journey for the explicit reason of defending themselves against highway robbers or criminals. However, he did admonish Peter not to depend on the power of the very same swords in defending himself or even his Lord for that matter, when the cause of the aggression is an attack on the Word.
I believe we should not judge our brothers who choose to serve in the military. I believe that saying what "sincere Christians" would or "would not find it in themselves to" do in this area of Christian conscience amounts to judging our brothers, something which Christ did give Christians a direct command not to do.
Not all members of the armed forces pull the trigger or release bombs, and not all members of the police are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits.
I totally agree with you in that we should not judge our brothers for simply being "members" of the armed forces or the police. Every Christian should work out his or her own salvation in whatever circumstance they happen to find themselves in.
aChristian

Defender,
You wrote: I totally agree with you in that we should not judge our brothers for simply being "members" of the armed forces or the police. Every Christian should work out his or her own salvation in whatever circumstance they happen to find themselves in.
However, you also wrote: Not all members of the armed forces pull the trigger or release bombs, and not all members of the police are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits.
By that last statement you seem to be saying that, though we should not judge our brothers who are members of the military or police whose jobs never involve the actual use of deadly force, we may judge them if their jobs may at times require the use of such force.
To some people the idea that Christians would be willing to forcefully defend themselves or their own families against violent aggressors, but no one else, seems both inconsistent and unchristian. Why? Because Jesus told us that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. And he showed in his parable of the good Samaritan that by "neighbor" Christ meant anyone who needs our help, even a person in a foreign land, since the Samaritans were considered foreigners by the Jews. With such things in mind many Christians believe it is quite "Christian" to forcefully defend people living in other parts of their own country, and even people living in other counties, against those who are unjustly attacking them.
The fairly recent actions of the US military in defending the people of Somalia come to mind as being a military action in which some Christians felt it was quite "Christian" for them to be involved in. Many people were then starving and in need of medical attention. Food and medicine that was being sent by the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups was not being allowed through. US troops were sent in to stop those who were interfering with those deliveries. I can also understand how many Christians felt it was right to do what they could during World War II to bring an end to Hitler's attempts to conquer Germany's neighbors and his attempts to exterminate the entire Jewish race.
With such things in mind, I continue to believe that it is wrong for us to judge our brothers who choose to be members of their country's military and police forces, even those who "pull the trigger," "release bombs," and "are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits."
Defender

aChristian
By that last statement you seem to be saying that, though we should not judge our brothers who are members of the military or police whose jobs never involve the actual use of deadly force, we may judge them if their jobs may at times require the use of such force.
If your read carefully my post, you will note that I did not bring up the issue of judgment against anyone. I simply stated that based on biblical precedent, Christians were not involved in national conflicts for the simple reason that their kingdom is not of this world. And based on that precedent, Jesus' example, the apostles' example and early Christians examples, we can safely deduce that they did not engage in military conflicts of any sort.
With such things in mind many Christians believe it is quite "Christian" to forcefully defend people living in other parts of their own country, and even people living in other counties, against those who are unjustly attacking them.
I think you are really straining it here. In your analogy, the Samaritan should not have only offered HUMANITARIAN assistance to the one in need, but that he should also have pusued the robbers and beat them into submission, even killing them if he had to in order to protect the neighborhood from their menace.
You are taking the Samaritan example and applying it to beyond what Jesus had intended.
The fairly recent actions of the US military in defending the people of Somalia come to mind as being a military action in which some Christians felt it was quite "Christian" for them to be involved in. Many people were then starving and in need of medical attention. Food and medicine that was being sent by the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups was not being allowed through. US troops were sent in to stop those who were interfering with those deliveries. I can also understand how many Christians felt it was right to do what they could during World War II to bring an end to Hitler's attempts to conquer Germany's neighbors and his attempts to exterminate the entire Jewish race.

In your view, it is ok to kill someone just because he is greedy and not allowing food to be rationed out to those in need. Every Christian should do his part in helping to alleviate the suffering and the needs of his fellow man in any way they can, but not at the expense of breaking a major Godly principle of "DO NOT KILL".
There is practically no difference between the aggression that ancient Rome manifested towards all that opposed it and the one that Hitler showed to his neighbors in WWII. And therefore, there should be no difference in the stand that early Christians took then from Christians who lived in nations that were in Hitler's sight.
With such things in mind, I continue to believe that it is wrong for us to judge our brothers who choose to be members of their country's military and police forces, even those who "pull the trigger," "release bombs," and "are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits."
While I agree on that overall judging should best be left in Jesus hands, however, sincere Christians walk by the spirit and are focused on things above and not on things on earth and follow the lamb wherever he goes and truly consider that their kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.
aChristian

Defender,
You wrote: I simply stated that based on biblical precedent, [early] Christians were not involved in national conflicts for the simple reason that their kingdom is not of this world. ...There is practically no difference between the aggression that ancient Rome manifested towards all that opposed it and the one that Hitler showed to his neighbors in WWII. And therefore, there should be no difference in the stand that early Christians took then from Christians who lived in nations that were in Hitler's sight.
It is true that when we review the records of the early church fathers up to about 170 A.D., no mention is made of Christians being enrolled in the military. However, the fact is that none of the earliest writers, such as Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) mention anything for or against military service. The writings of St. Clement (A.D. 30-100), Mathetes (A.D. 130), Ignatius (A.D. 30-107), Papias (A.D. 70-155), Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), the epistles of Barnabus (A.D. 100), Ireneas (A.D. 120-202), the Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 160), Tatian (A.D. 110-172), Athenagoras (A.D. 177), and Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217) do not discuss whether it is right or wrong for Christians to be involved in war. However, it is worthwhile to note that Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 200) This punches a hole in the belief of some that all those in the military who became Christians in the first two hundred years after Christ immediately left the military.
It is also a fact that no mention is made up until the time of Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) that any Christian believed it was wrong to serve in the military.
Your saying that Christians today really have no reason to view serving in the military any differently than early Christians viewed serving in the Roman army is false for at least two reasons. First of all is the fact that Rome often persecuted Christians and often used its military personel to do so. This situation certainly strongly discouraged - to put it mildly - Christians from becoming Roman soldiers. The Roman government also required all soldiers to take an oath of allegiance to the emperor. This oath included words which acknowledged the Roman emperor as their God. Of course, no Christian could do such a thing, then or now. These things obviously had an awful lot to do with the fact that early Christians did not enlist in the Roman army.
You seem to believe that the apostolic period began with pure pacifism, continuing until the time of Constantine. And that during Constantine's time when the church became "apostate" Christains began joining the military. You do not seem to consider the difference in circumstances that had come about by Constantine's time. Christians were no longer being persecuted by the Romans. Christians no longer had to worship the emperor in order to join the military. Serving in the military was no longer an issue of idolatry for the Christian, and so many joined.
You wrote: In your analogy, the Samaritan should not have only offered HUMANITARIAN assistance to the one in need, but that he should also have pusued the robbers and beat them into submission, even killing them if he had to in order to protect the neighborhood from their menace.
Of course he should not have. And neither should we under similar conditions. We should report muggers to the police if we know their identities. Then, if Christians are employed in our communities on the police force, they will track the muggers down and arrest them. And they will use force to do so, if such force is necessary, to protect us from such men.
You wrote: In your view, it is ok to kill someone just because he is greedy and not allowing food to be rationed out to those in need.
In my view if armed men are using force to prevent food and medicine from being delivered to starving and sick people, such as was happening in Somolia, those men should be ordered to surrender or be shot. What if your childen were dying and needed medicine and someone stood in your doorway preventing you from bringing it to them, what would you do? Would you use force to remove them if they refused to let you reach your children, or would you let your children die. If you say you would use such force, why then is it wrong to do the same to save your neighbor's children?
You wrote: Sincere Christians walk by the spirit and are focused on things above and not on things on earth and follow the lamb wherever he goes and truly consider that their kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.
Jesus said that his kingdom was no part of this world; otherwise his servants would fight that he not be delivered up to the Jews (John 18:36). Jesus made it plain that the real hope of believers was in the future literal kingdom of God, to be established on the earth (at his return). He continually emphasized this to his followers, who erroneously believed they would somehow bring about the existence of the kingdom through physical force or revolution (Acts 1:6). Did this mean that Jesus was always opposed to the use of force to defend what is right in this world? No, it does not. For Jesus himself did not hesitate to use aggressive force in clearing out the temple area of the moneychangers (Matt. 21:12; John 2:15). By his use of a whip of cords Jesus clearly showed that he condoned the just use of force.
In his discussion about not paying back evil for evil and the taking of vengeance, Paul says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Romans 12:18) If there is something we can do to ward off arguments or violence with others, then we are to seek this foremost. This does not mean, however, that we are to consistently allow evil people to use us for their own ends (Prov. 25:26). If we are aware of evil intentions on their part that will bring harm to others, we would not logically seek "peace" by giving in to their demands. You do not turn over your child to a child molester just to "keep peace." By the same token, many Christians feel that the Free World is not to disarm so that totalitarian countries can take over and destroy the lives of millions. They see it as the same kind of issue, one of self-defense. Peace isn't always maintained by giving in to deliberate evil. Is it really a manifestation of goodness to furnish no opposition to evil? I don't think so.
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/war.htm
Bang

Didn't I just read somewhere that JWs have 'security' doods in the carpark at meetings. What a crock.
Bang
Defender

aChristian
1- At one point in our discussion you were disagreeing with my view that Christians should not bear arms in a national conflict as being judgmental on my part. Yet, you condone Christians that have and are bearing arms in national conflicts as not being judgmental against their own brothers who happened to be on the other side of the front, to the point of pulling the trigger and KILLING them.
This is done in the name of fighting aggressors like Hitler and righting wrongs committed by totalitarian regimes.
2- Your assertion that Rome always persecuted Christians and thus it was normal that Christians did not join the Roman army is false. Again, the biblical record at Acts 21:32 clearly shows that Roman soldiers actually saved Paul from persecution from his Jewish countrymen. Also, the precedent of 66-70 AD is another example that while the Roman army came down crushingly hard on the Jewish revolt, Christians who fled Jerusalem were found in Pella and the surrounding regions which were under Roman control where they received no harm. This proves that at least until 70 AD there was no viable Roman persecution against Christians.
3- The fact that 1st and 2nd century Christian writers did not mention the ethical implications for Christians to be involved in war is rather moot. Most war conflicts of that era were between Rome and one or more of its renegade provinces. If Christians were to be involved in any of these fights, they had to find themselves either marching in Roman legions or members of the resistance on the other side. Both of which were absolutely futile positions for any sincere Christian to find himself in.
4- The fact that after Constantine, many “Christians” joined because there was no persecution or allegiance to false emperor worship is another irrelevant point, for the simple reason that Constantine’s Rome was as no more Christian than the Vatican is today. The idea that a nation as a state can become Christian is absurd. Christianity is an INDIVIDUAL conversion and personal faith. Anything else is a perversion.
5- The Somalia affair shows the futility of the US “armed” effort to try to help those who were starving there while at the same time ignores the homeless, sick, elderly, starving children, racial tensions in its own back yard where these could have been helped without sending a single marine or firing a single bullet. The Somalia affair is a typical example of why nations or states are not and actually cannot be “Christians”. If they were, we can easily see Christ condemning them with words like; ”Hypocrites! Ought you not correct your own paths first before setting out to correct others?”
6- The reference to Jesus action in clearing the temple is out of context. There Jesus, with the use of a whip, was symbolically showing God’s Zeal for pure worship and you are applying it to Christians correcting national wrongs. Jesus had no such intentions. Those very same merchants had set up shop at the same place the very next day after Jesus’ incident, clearly showing that Jesus was not merely CORRECTING what was wrong.
Additionally, and even if went with your argument, I really cannot understand how you can equate the use of the whip with the dropping of the A bomb on unsuspecting Hiroshima in order to correct the totalitarian wrongs committed by the Empire of Japan.
7- You said:
This does not mean, however, that we are to consistently allow evil people to use us for their own ends (Prov. 25:26).
The operative word here is us or I, individually. I will not allow evil people to use me by trying to be cautious, and if attacked personally I will try to defend myself. But above all, I would be found praying hard for the one that can really save me.
If we are aware of evil intentions on their part that will bring harm to others, we would not logically seek "peace" by giving in to their demands. You do not turn over your child to a child molester just to "keep peace." By the same token, many Christians feel that the Free World is not to disarm so that totalitarian countries can take over and destroy the lives of millions. They see it as the same kind of issue, one of self-defense.
You are mixing two separate arguments and assigning them to the same token. They are not. The first involves personal choice and personal wellbeing and the other is national defense.
Peace isn't always maintained by giving in to deliberate evil. Is it really a manifestation of goodness to furnish no opposition to evil? I don't think so.
Christians must oppose evil with goodness, long suffering, forgiveness, even dying as blameless innocents the same way their Lord was. This is what it means to be Christian.
Here is a hypothetical example on the futility of opposing evil by the use of force:
Let us assume that Hitler’s Germany was allowed to march all over Europe where no resistance was offered whatsoever. Not a single shot. What would be the result? Just think about it for a second. Are they going to start rounding up people and shooting them? Well you might say they did that. That is true, but only when they faced local resistance. Let us try again and think about this where there is NO resistance whatsoever.
Well, what about the Jews and other “undesirables”? Where they not rounded up and gassed? That is very true. So, then that would constitute evil and thus it behooves Christian nations “Free World” to do something and stop it. Well they did, not because Jews were being gassed, for they became aware of this atrocity much later in the war, and what the result was? While Nazi Germany gassed and killed over 6 million innocent Jews and other “undesirables”, the Free World was not able to help a single one of them. Furthermore, and presumably, to save the Free World, 50-100 million civilian innocent people had to die and an entire continent had to be ravaged in order to correct this wrong. If Germany had been left to its malicious vices and let us assume that they ended up killing over 50 million innocent people, so then what wrong had really been corrected? Can you see the futility of all this?
National defense is not self defense. It is national pride. You cannot equate the right of self defense of a Christian individual with that of a state. A nation state cannot be Christian in the sense of the word and history had proved that.
Individual Christians are to be prayerfully dependant on the one that died for us, keeping close to him at all times, and he promised that he will be with us always. No matter what difficulty a Christian is faced with, he or she are assured that Christ had died for them and will resurrect them.

Christian Pacifism

Share this