• Home
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get to Know Us
    • Derek >
      • Poetry
    • Catalina
    • Elin, Atticus, & Denton
    • Transilvania Center for Leadership and Development
    • Mission to the World
  • Get Involved
    • Pray
    • Creative Contributions
    • Give
    • Visit
    • Financial Q&A
  • Get In Touch
    • Newsletters
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Videos
  • Catechism
  • Home
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get to Know Us
    • Derek >
      • Poetry
    • Catalina
    • Elin, Atticus, & Denton
    • Transilvania Center for Leadership and Development
    • Mission to the World
  • Get Involved
    • Pray
    • Creative Contributions
    • Give
    • Visit
    • Financial Q&A
  • Get In Touch
    • Newsletters
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Videos
  • Catechism
   

Pacifism Addendum (1): Violence is Antithetical to Christianity's Goal

3/5/2015

0 Comments

 
In Stanley Hauerwas's book, "War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity," he summarizes some very profound thoughts from Martin Luther King Jr. Hauerwas says, 
​Nonviolent resistance therefore is not directed against people but against forces of evil. Those who happen to be doing evil are as victimized by the evil they do as those who are the object of their oppression. From the perspective of nonviolence, King argued that the enemy is not the white people of Montgomery, but injustice itself. The object of the boycott of the buses was not to defeat white people, but to defeat the injustice that mars their lives. The means must therefore be commensurate with the end that is sought—for the end cannot justify the means, particularly if the means involve the use of violence, because the “end is preexistent in the means.”This is particularly the case if the end of nonviolence is the creation of a “beloved community.”
I want to pull out three basic ideas from this quote which I think are vital to understanding the position of nonviolence. While you can read the rest of the material I've provided and glean many of these concepts, I think it is succinctly stated here so well, I wanted to make sure it was grasped.

Those we tend to identify as our enemies are fellow image bearers of God: 
While no Christian will ever say it, we tend to group terribly evil individuals in a subhuman category. Murderers and despots are not worthy of life. They deserve to rot in hell. They are animals. Often, we loathe these depraved individuals, and rarely do we seek to love and weep for them. King rightly identifies that those who opposed him, while technically his enemy, were fellow human beings worthy of love. If Jesus Christ could and did love those who murdered and tortured him, and if Jesus loved me while I was at enmity with God, than surely I am called to love even those image bearers who are at enmity with me. If we are not better than Jesus, than our enemies are not below us. 

Our war is not with flesh and blood:
I think King identifies what so many of us forget - that our war is with evil. Yes, humans often ally with and embody evil, but our war is not with our fellow humans. Many of us wrongly believe that by defeating human embodiments of evil, we are defeating it. But such is not the case. Conquering and killing - even those who are evil - simply creates more evil, or extends the evil. We are very familiar with this in regard to our habits. We recognize that the "killing" of some of our bad habits is not the end of our inner warfare, as true change and reform requires a positive creation of good habits. As Hauerwas says at the end of his quote, the end we seek isn't simply the abolishment of evil, but rather the thriving of a loving community.

Means must be commensurate with the end:
The last sentence segues nicely into the third point Hauerwas makes. Christians who choose violence and those who choose nonviolence both claim that their end goal is the creation of a loving community. But one has to ask how the means of violence are commensurate and logical if the end being sought is a loving community? Such means and ends seem antithetical to one another. If my enemies are image bearers, and if my goal is reconciliation and loving community, how could I justify the use of violence as a consistent means to accomplish my goal? 
0 Comments

Sometimes violence is the only way to prevent worse violence. Bombing an ISIS convoy on their way to slaughter a village seems like an obvious use of justified violence.

10/1/2014

0 Comments

 
First, I think it is necessary to continually undercut this notion that we are responsible for securing the ends of God. Our job is not to accomplish God's ends, but rather to trust God with accomplishing his ends as we remain faithful to using his means. Moses held up the staff and the waters parted. Daniel prayed and God delivered him. The prophets followed God and were murdered. Jesus submitted to injustice and died. Sometimes God accomplishes his ends in the moment, and sometimes his ends are only realized far into the future. We cannot assess the morality of a situation by the ends we think we are obtaining. We must be faithful to God's prescribed means. 

Second, even though I don't think arguing pragmatism and ends is the right course for discussion, since it is the focal point of the anti-pacifistic argument, I think it's worthwhile to undermine the smugness that anti-pacifists seem to have when they offer scenarios like ISIS or Nazi Germany, saying that violence obviously produces better results. If Hauerwas's article and all of the other rebuttals I provide aren't enough to convince you, I think the following clip from the movie "The Kingdom" provides a fantastic look into what violence is more likely to breed than justice and peace. 

To set up the scene, an American unit was retaliating to an injustice that occurred to innocent lives. They wanted justice and vengeance. They hunt down the guy who was responsible for the injustice and kill him. The man leaves a family behind who sees their beloved's death as an injustice, and in turn, vows to get justice through violence. Now we could argue that the Americans were right in killing this "terrorist," but the end of the movie leaves us in recognition that violence is a never ending cycle. So the "terrorist" killed some who we think are "innocent" people. But I wonder what injustice may have motivated the terrorist to view these individuals as culpable and worthy of death - worthy of what he viewed as justice. On the surface, violence may prevent imminent violence. Violence may even end up preventing the loss of a great number of lives. But Christians are commanded to love. We're not commanded to use violence because violence tends to beget more violence. The use of violence comes with a high probability of ultimately solving nothing. The use of love and patience in awaiting God's vengeance comes with a high probability of suffering, but it comes with a promise that this will put us in the company of our savior, and that God will use such foolish means to show the world his Kingdom come and accomplish his purposes. 
Finally, it seems like most of us are content to allow our intuitions on what is effective to guide us in our practice. It seems like violence is the best solution to a situation, and it may often prove to be the most immediate method for solving a problem. However, modern research shows that not only is violence not a better means at solving the immediate problem (at least in larger conflicts), it is also not the best long-term solution. Solving a problem immediately may actually create worse consequences down the road. 

Scholarly research indicates that non-violence has proven itself more effective at exacting meaningful change (see also "Why Civil Resistance Works").  
Picture
I think Martin Luther King Jr.'s words here are probably the best and most succinct summary to close:
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
0 Comments

Living in a fallen world sometimes necessetates that God use means he otherwise wouldn't want to. See divorce in Matthew 19.

9/1/2014

0 Comments

 
The argument here is that if God can allow something like divorce in a fallen world - due to the hardness of hearts - then perhaps violence is a means God can and should use in a fallen world. Maybe it's a necessary evil. Advocates of this look at the passage where we see Jesus talking about marriage in Matthew 19. He tells the Pharisees that marriage is very serious, and the Pharisees push back. If it is as serious as Jesus says it is, why did Moses (or God through Moses, which I believe is implied) permit divorce?

First, it's important to note that Jesus did not change the moral law. If divorce was wrong in the OT, it is wrong in the NT.

Second, if a means is inherently evil, then God wouldn't use it as a means. God is perfect. We can argue about first and second causes, God's sovereignty, and all of that, but these things are irrelevant to the conversation. God would not use or condone actions that are immoral. In Matthew 19, Jesus is very clear that divorce was permitted civically in the OT. Civic permission is different than endorsement or use. God seems to endorse violence in the OT, so it can't be something that is immoral in and of itself. 

While violence is not in and of itself immoral, it seems that it is only moral in extremely specific situations. It is moral as a tool for the judgment of God. God made humanity and has a right over their lives. He is their creator. It is at his discretion, then, that men and women live and die. In the OT, God brought this violence about by his people, Israel. But in the NT we see that this violence was placed upon Christ on the cross. While we will be judged, this will be a future event and it will be done by Jesus himself. Jesus has likewise called his followers to love their enemies, not judge, and leave vengeance to God. While violence towards others is not inherently immoral, it is only made moral in extremely limited circumstances - when God himself places his approval upon it. It seems like the NT gives some pretty sweeping claims about God's permission for Christians to use violence. This is not a picture of God using immoral means in the OT and rescinding that. It's not an acknowledgement that if God "gave in" to the fall and used a fallen means of violence, then it must still be necessary to use violence now. Those things are not at all true. Instead, the violence God exacted as judgment in the OT has now been tempered both by the violence done to Christ, but also by the example of Christ in his endurance of violence and injustice for even his enemies. 
0 Comments

Men, like Bonhoeffer, who renounce pacifism in the face of extreme evil, show that pacifism isn't correct or viable.

8/31/2014

0 Comments

 
1. Most of Christ's commands are harder than their alternative. Being generous is more difficult than being selfish. Being pure is much harder than lusting after our desires. Being faithful to Christ is much harder than becoming a martyr. But just as the fact that selfish, lustful, and unfaithful Christians have walked the earth don't disprove Christ's ethic, so it would be for Bonhoeffer's example of throwing off pacifism in the face of great evil. A Christian denying Christ in the face of torture and death no more disproves Christ than Bonhoeffer throwing off pacifism in the face of a man like Hitler. 

2. Even if Bonhoeffer gave up on the pacifistic ideology, we could find a number of individuals who clung to non-violence in the face of great evil (a good starting list can be found in this article). 

3. I'm not familiar with the evidence, so I will emphasize that you must look into this further if it is of interest. Some believe (as in this article) that Bonhoeffer did not actually throw off his pacifistic ideology at the end of his life. They use documentation of his arrest, his own writings, and other evidence to make the case that Bonhoeffer held onto his pacifistic ideology until the end. If he did, that certainly doesn't prove pacifism right, but it would help to at least undercut this argument a little more. 
0 Comments

Christ's example of non-violence is not prescriptive. It was a Messianic role he took on for the sole purpose of dying as a sacrifice for sins. We are not called to do the same.

8/1/2014

0 Comments

 
Jesus Christ was certainly unique, as was the role he fulfilled. It is perfectly fair to be cautious about being overly prescriptive. We could turn many aspects of Christ's life which shouldn't be prescriptive into prescriptions. We could say that because Christ was 30 when he began his ministry, we should require all who desire to work in ministry to be at least thirty years of age. We could say that because Christ was an itinerant teacher, we should likewise be itinerant. We could over spiritualize and over prescribe directives if we attempt to imitate Christ's life in total. The question here, then, is should non-violence be prescriptive, or was it just an optional mode Christ used for his ministry, and/or a specific role he needed to fulfill as the savior of the world?

It seems hard to imagine that the enemy love of Christ was a means taken on by Christ only to fulfill his messianic role. Am I to believe that enemy love is a role of Christ, and not a characteristic of God which we are to emulate? Isn't the notion of enemy love vital to my salvation? Didn't Christ die for me while I was his enemy, while I was far off, and before I loved him? Enemy love is vital to soteriology, and it is vital to understanding the character of God. To say that this is simply a role God uses just doesn't fit with the God of the Bible as revealed through Jesus Christ.

Beyond that, of the relatively few specifics Christ gave to his followers, two things we see pop up over and over in the gospels, and continue throughout the epistles, is the promise that we Christians are to bear our crosses and expect persecution. I love the way John Howard Yoder describes this expectation for the cross and persecution. 
This Gospel concept of the cross of the Christian does not mean that suffering is thought of as in itself redemptive or that martyrdom is a value to be sought after. Nor does it refer uniquely to being persecuted for 'religious' reasons by an outspokenly pagan government. What Jesus refers to in his call to cross-bearing is rather the seeming defeat of that strategy of obedience which is no strategy, the inevitable suffering of those whose only goal is to be faithful to that love which puts one at the mercy of one's neighbor, which abandons claims to justice for oneself and for one's own in an overriding concern for the reconciling of the adversary and the estranged.
Bearing our cross is simply unrelenting obedience to God in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, and the temptation to use other means. Christ refused religious rule, political rule, and military rule at the outset of his ministry when the Devil tempted him in these three ways. He refused to be crowned king by the poor when he provided them bread, he refused rule from the religious on Palm Sunday and when he taught in the temple, and he refused military rule when he withheld the legions of angels he could have called to defeat Rome on the night of his betrayal. The harshest words Jesus ever had for his disciples was when he linked Peter with Satan. And why did Jesus tell Peter and Satan to stand aside? Because they declared that God's means of suffering were not valid means to use in the world. The lesson wasn't learned, however, as Peter more forcefully attempted to circumvent God's means at the height of Christ's temptation to do the same. Peter used his sword to swipe at Christ's accusers, as Jesus looked his enemy the Devil (who had indwelt Judas) in the eyes and chose love, healing, and submission to God's foolishness. Jesus saved his condemnation not for Judas or his armed band, but for Peter, when he said, "No more of this!" All who live by the sword will die by it. 

Christians have turned the bearing of our crosses into something we rarely see (at least in the West), and something we absolutely try to avoid. But that doesn't seem like something that is a possibility for Christians, if Jesus has made bearing a cross an expectation for following him. As Yoder points out, bearing our cross is not something we wait around for. It's something purposeful. It's pursuing the means of God without regard for the powers of society. We take the cross upon ourselves. We purpose it. We don't wait for it. Jesus also shows us that our cross is not quietism or insurrection. You can't say that Christ was passive. If he was, of what interest would he have been to the rulers of his day? But at the same time, he wasn't an insurrectionist. He did not attack the powers with force. The cross is also not the Golden Rule. Jesus doesn't just tell us to do to others as we'd have done to us, but to follow his example. The cross of Christ 

The way of Jesus in his submission to God and his means of love in the face of evident defeat is apparent. We're not talking about trivial prescriptions here. We're talking about the core of Christ's message and the means that are meant for his Kingdom. Christ's death on the cross wasn't just a transaction. Jesus didn't come only to die on the cross. He came to exemplify what obedience to God looks like in the face of seemingly insurmountable powers, and he tells us that we have the same lot.

I'm sure this explanation is far too short to be convincing, but hopefully it piques your interest. I highly recommend John Howard Yoder's book "The Politics of Jesus," where he makes a case for Christ's example here to be followed.
0 Comments

The early church was against joining the military because of the often required bachanal feasts and god worship.

7/31/2014

0 Comments

 
It's undeniable that a huge consideration for the early church in regard to joining the military was based on oaths soldiers may have had to take, required god worship, participation in carnal feasts and partying, intimidating behavior through the use of power, and the list could go on. It's for some of these same reasons that other, seemingly harmless professions were judged wrong for a Christian. As one great example, you can see a quote from the early church (Hippolytus, I believe) which condemns Christians who become actors. Now part of this may have been because some actors put on plays in the Colosseum and sometimes used the condemned as props in battle reenactments (so deaths weren't acted, but real), but the condemnation was likely due to other aspects of the theater scene which couldn't be separated from the immorality in which they were saturated. 

While all of these additional reasons for prohibiting individuals from joining the military may be true, it seems very difficult to say that doing violence wasn't one of the issues the early church had. You can look at many of the quotes in section 4 and see that violence against those found guilty for capital punishment, violence in general, violence allowed by public laws, violence in self-defense, and violence to the extremely wicked are all things some in the early church were vocal about condemning. You can also look at the context of some of the soldiers like Martin of Tours who stated his reason for leaving the army as an inability to fight. Sure, the early church may have had reasons other than violence to prohibit jobs which required one to do harm to others, but violence was certainly one of the central reasons for such a prohibition. 
0 Comments

The current theology of the trinity wasn't solidified until the 4th century, yet we accept that. Why can't we accept a doctrine of self-defense and just war?

7/16/2014

0 Comments

 
I want to begin with a lengthy quote from Roland Allen's book, "The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church." 
​THE GREAT HERESIES IN THE EARLY CHURCH AROSE NOT FROM THE RAPID EXPANSION RESULTING FROM THE WORK OF THESE UNKNOWN TEACHERS; BUT IN THOSE CHURCHES WHICH WERE LONGEST ESTABLISHED, AND WHERE THE CHRISTIANS WERE NOT SO BUSILY ENGAGED IN CONVERTING THE HEATHEN ROUND THEM. THE CHURCH OF THAT DAY WAS APPARENTLY QUITE FEARLESS OF ANY DANGER THAT THE INFLUX OF LARGE NUMBERS OF WHAT WE SHOULD CALL ILLITERATE CONVERTS MIGHT LOWER THE STANDARD OF CHURCH DOCTRINE. SHE HELD THE TRADITION HANDED DOWN BY THE APOSTLES, AND EXPECTED THE NEW CONVERTS TO GROW UP INTO IT, TO MAINTAIN IT AND TO PROPAGATE IT. AND SO IN FACT THEY DID. THE DANGER TO THE DOCTRINE LAY NOT IN THESE ILLITERATE CONVERTS ON THE OUTSKIRTS; BUT AT HOME, IN PLACES LIKE EPHESUS AND ALEXANDRIA, AMONGST THE MORE HIGHLY EDUCATED AND PHILOSOPHICALLY MINDED CHRISTIANS. IT WAS AGAINST THEM THAT SHE HAD TO MAINTAIN THE DOCTRINE.
 
NOW ALL THIS SUGGESTS QUITE A DIFFERENT ATMOSPHERE FROM THAT WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR. THE CHURCH OF THOSE AGES WAS AFRAID OF THE HUMAN SPECULATION OF LEARNED MEN: WE ARE AFRAID OF THE IGNORANCE OF ILLITERATE MEN. THE CHURCH THEN MAINTAINED THE DOCTRINE AGAINST MEN WHO WERE CONSCIOUSLY INNOVATING: WE MAINTAIN THE DOCTRINE AGAINST MEN WHO MAY UNCONSCIOUSLY MISREPRESENT THE TRUTH THAT THEY HAVE LEARNT. THE CHURCH THEN MAINTAINED THE DOCTRINE BY HER FAITH IN IT: WE MAINTAIN OUR DOCTRINE BY DISTRUSTING OUR CONVERTS' CAPACITY TO RECEIVE IT. THE CHURCH THEN MAINTAINED HER DOCTRINE BY THINKING IT SO CLEAR THAT ANY ONE COULD UNDERSTAND IT: WE MAINTAIN OUR DOCTRINE BY TREATING IT AS SO COMPLICATED THAT ONLY THEOLOGIANS CAN UNDERSTAND IT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CHURCH THEN WAS QUITE PREPARED THAT ANY MAN WHO BELIEVED IN CHRIST SHOULD TEACH OTHERS WHAT HE KNEW OF HIM: WE ARE ONLY PREPARED TO ALLOW MEN WHOM WE HAVE SPECIALLY TRAINED TO TEACH IT. WHEN OTHERS WHOM WE HAVE NOT SPECIALLY TRAINED OF THEIR OWN SPONTANEOUS MOTION DO TEACH OTHERS WE HASTEN TO SEND A TRAINED TEACHER TO TAKE THEIR PLACE. THAT IS, OF COURSE, EXACTLY WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH DID NOT DO, YET IT MAINTAINED ITS STANDARD OF DOCTRINE. 
 
AND HERE I WOULD RECALL THE FACT THAT IN ALL THOSE SPORADIC CASES OF SPONTANEOUS TEACHING WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR IN OUR OWN DAY WE NEVER HEAR OF ANY DELIBERATE CORRUPTION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. WHEN OUR MISSIONARIES DISCOVER THESE CASES, THEY NEARLY ALWAYS FIND THAT THE TEACHING GIVEN IS, SO FAR AS IT GOES, TRUE, AND IS VERY OFTEN SURPRISINGLY TRUE AND DEEP. THESE CONVERTS SEEM TO HAVE LEARNED BY THEMSELVES MUCH THAT WE THINK CAN ONLY BE TAUGHT BY US. AND WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED IS VERY FUNDAMENTAL. AND THEY SEEM ALSO INVARIABLY TO SHOW A GREAT READINESS TO LEARN MORE. NOW THAT IS NOT THE SPIRIT WHICH BREEDS HERESY.THE SPIRIT WHICH BREEDS HERESY IS A SPIRIT OF PRIDE WHICH IS PUFFED UP WITH AN UNDUE SENSE OF ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE AND IS UNWILLING TO BE TAUGHT.
 
THE REASON WHY THE SPONTANEOUS ZEAL OF NEW CONVERTS DOES NOT BREED THAT SPIRIT IS NOT HARD TO FIND. SUCH CONVERTS ARE ALMOST INVARIABLY MEN WHO HAVE HAD SOME REAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. THEY HAVE HEARD SOMETHING OF CHRIST; THEY HAVE RECEIVED SOME TEACHING ABOUT HIM; THEY HAVE GENERALLY LEARNED TO REPEAT THE CREED AND TO READ THE BIBLE; THEY HAVE CALLED UPON CHRIST AND BEEN HEARD; AND THIS HAS WROUGHT A CHANGE IN THEIR WHOLE OUTLOOK UPON LIFE, SUCH A CHANGE THAT THEY ARE EAGER THAT OTHERS SHOULD SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE. HENCE THEY BEGIN TO TEACH OTHERS, AND TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS. NOW ALL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE DEMANDS DOCTRINE FOR ITS PROPER STATEMENT AND EXPLANATION. IF THEN THESE MEN ARE NOT WELL INSTRUCTED IN THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS THEY FEEL THAT THERE IS MUCH IN IT WHICH THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND. CONSEQUENTLY INSTRUCTION IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE COMES TO THEM WITH AN ENLIGHTENMENT AND A POWER WHICH IS A JOY, AND THEREFORE THEY GLADLY RECEIVE IT, BECAUSE IT SUPPLIES A FELT NEED OF THEIR SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE. IN SUCH AN ATMOSPHERE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IS IN LITTLE DANGER, FOR THOUGH FALSE OR INADEQUATE TEACHING, IF THEY RECEIVED SUCH, MIGHT PREVAIL FOR A TIME, YET THE TRUE TEACHING WHEN IT COMES MUST INEVITABLY DRIVE OUT THE FALSE. FOR THE EXPERIENCE IS A TRUE EXPERIENCE, AND A TRUE EXPERIENCE DEMANDS A TRUE DOCTRINE. IT IS AS THE COMPLEMENT OF EXPERIENCE THAT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FIRST TOOK SHAPE. IT IS NOTORIOUS THAT THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, FOR INSTANCE, WAS FORMULATED THROUGH THE ATTEMPTS OF THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST TO EXPLAIN THEIR EXPERIENCE. CHRIST APPEARED, AND THE APOSTLES EXPERIENCED HIS POWER: THE HOLY GHOST DESCENDED, AND THE APOSTLES AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FOLLOWERS KNEW HIS INDWELLING; THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AROSE OUT OF ATTEMPTS TO EXPRESS THAT EXPERIENCE.
 
AS THE COMPLEMENT OF EXPERIENCE, DOCTRINE RENEWS ITS YOUTH FROM AGE TO AGE; BUT DIVORCED FROM EXPERIENCE IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE STATEMENT OF AN INTELLECTUAL THEORY, AND TO REST IN SOMETHING WHICH AN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS HAS CREATED IS TO REST IN THAT WHICH AN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS CAN DESTROY… 
The last paragraph summarizes one of Allen's main points, which is that doctrine must be a description of our experience with God. Our God is a living God and our religion is centered around relationship. We are not stalkers of God, but friends, servants, and communers of God. The doctrine of the trinity was formed from experience. The Apostles encountered Christ and he was truly human. They encountered Christ and he was truly God. No doctrine could be formed which did not adhere to these two experienced truths. The doctrine took so long to solidify because the true experience of God couldn't let humanity get away with rationalizing how we think God should work. The experience of God held theology ransom until it aligned.

First, I would argue that the theology of the trinity was debated pretty thoroughly for several hundred years. To my knowledge you don't see the same sort of thing occurring with non-violence. The church was fairly univocal for the first few hundred years. Sure, the topic wasn't covered nearly to the same extent, but you just don't have the same sort of back and forth you have with the discussion of the trinity.

Second, the lack of debate seems to have a pretty clear source - there was no room for a competing view. The early church struggled to explain the trinity because they had two seemingly competing ideas. They thought they had a paradox, when in reality they had an antinomy. How can Christ be God and human? To see the same sort of debate about violence vs. non-violence, there would have to be two competing foundations - a seemingly non-violent Jesus and a seemingly violent Jesus. But the early church seemed to only recognize a non-violent Christ and non-violent commands, as he reserved all judgment and violence for his coming.

Third, it wasn't until the empire and the church merged and philosophizing began that a non-violent approach was explained away. Allen points out that it is rationalizing and philosophizing that tend to create doctrinal problems - as you move away from explaining experience. The experience of Jesus and his means was clear to the Apostles, and they made it clear to their disciples. The early church didn't have a problem with non-violence because as an experience of Christ, it made sense. It wasn't until they began trying to figure out how to fit God into the empire that things began to change, as they moved away from describing their experience with Christ. 

The power of the pacifistic position comes in the fact that it is not only the most natural reading of Christ's and the Apostles's teachings, but it is also the common practice of the early church. You have some teachings, like the trinity, which aren't explicitly taught in the Bible, and are only solidified a few hundred years after the establishment of the church. You have other practices, like the sharing of property, which are early traditions in the church, but not explicit teachings. Pacifism doesn't fit either of these categories. Pacifism, unlike the trinity, is less a deduction and more of a natural reading. Along with being the most natural reading of the text, pacifism is also the common practice of the early church. When you find something that is both early tradition (as opposed to developed tradition) and the most natural reading of explicit teaching from Christ and the apostles, you have a very hard teaching to overturn. 
0 Comments

If God wants to protect an aggressor against my use of force, he can do it.

5/6/2014

0 Comments

 
I have frequently heard this defense from non-pacifists. If someone comes into their home, they'll kill them because it's their right to self-defense. And if God wants that aggressor to come to Christ, God is able to protect the attacker from harm if he really wants. 

The funny thing about this line of reasoning is that if God is able to protect the attacker, isn't he able to protect the defender? Why should a defender be so willing to take another's life, to do violence to another human being? Why are we ok with trusting another person's life to God, but not our own? The question should not at all be "what is God capable of doing." Of course God can protect whomever he wants. The question is "what means has God prescribed for us to use." The pacifism argument shouldn't turn into an argument about God's sovereignty. I fully believe that God is sovereign, more fully than most, as I am in the Reformed camp. The issue is rather about God's commands. My job is not to determine the path I believe to bring me the better chance of survival and allow God to override tweak the outcome if he wants. My job is to figure out what path leads to obedience and allow God to determine the outcome he desires, which may be the message my decision sends and the soul it touches rather than than the life it fails to preserve. 
0 Comments

Didn't Christ say he came to bring a sword and not peace?

4/26/2014

0 Comments

 
Matthew 10 has Jesus declaring that he came to bring a sword and not peace. While that sounds like an endorsement of violence on his part, I actually think the context of the passage makes this section a strong proof text for pacifism. 

1. Augustine's argument for why Peter was reprimanded by Christ for defending his savior in the garden is that Christ did not give Peter the authority to use the sword. Matthew 10 gives us the context for what authority Christ gave his disciples, and it has no inclusion of violence. They had the authority to drive out demons, heal, lodge with those who were hospitable, and share the gospel of the Kingdom. The use of the sword is not included. If you want to use an Augustinian line of reasoning to justify violence based on authoritative command, you can't use this passage. 

2. In this same passage, preceding Christ's reference to the sword, he tells his disciples that they will be sheep among wolves, and they are to remain as innocent as doves. He proceeds to tell them how they'll be beaten. This hardly seems that Jesus is advocating violence in response to opposition. 

3. Jesus does give one specific response his disciples are to have to persecution. They are to flee. Jesus just told them that they would be put to death due to their family members betrayal. We're not just talking about how to respond to a beating, but to imminent death. Jesus tells his disciples to run away.

4. The verses immediately preceding Christ's sword comment are the familiar ones about not fearing what men can do to our bodies, God has numbered our hairs, we're worth more than sparrows, etc. This is not at all the language of the disciples bearing the sword, but rather the disciples receiving the sword.

When we come to the verse where Christ talks about the sword, then, the context is that the disciples have authority to help others and spread good news, they will be persecuted and betrayed yet are to remain innocent through that, and they should try to escape evil, but if they don't, remember that the Spirit will help them and God cares for them no matter what. The verse about the sword, then, is metaphorical in the sense that Christ divides a family like a sword (reminds me of the dividing language in Hebrews 4:12), but it is also literal in the sense that a disciple's own family may put them to the sword. 

5. Jesus goes on to say that disciples are to love Christ more than their family, and here tells the disciples what that love looks like. It doesn't look like self defense against persecution, it looks like taking up their cross and following Christ. Because "whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." This passage, then, is not at all about the preservation of one's physical life, but rather the loss of it in light of the eternal. 
0 Comments

Pacifism passes off responsibility to others

4/24/2014

0 Comments

 
If pacifists think that governments and laws are necessary, but a Christian shouldn't serve at levels of the government which would require them to legislate or enact harm, does that mean pacifists are just passing the necessary governmental responsibility on for others to do?

Many Christian pacifists think that participating in governmental positions like the president or congress are compromises for one's Christianity. The president is the commander in chief of the military and congress passes all sorts of forceful legislation and legislation that allows for harm to come to others (self-defense laws, voting to go to war, etc). It seems like a shirking of duties, then, if pacifists are unwilling to participate in government to a certain extent. 


There are several problems with this accusation. The first is that pacifists acknowledge that the Kingdom overrules the kingdom. Their primary responsibility is not to compromise the lesser for the greater. It doesn't matter if people think they are shirking responsibilities. 

Second, a participation in lower government is still possible. There are all sorts of levels in which a pacifist can do great good (public education, healthcare, federal benefits, etc). Why does one have to be willing to serve as a higher level official to be considered a beneficial participant in the land? 

Finally, I hear many conservative Christians bemoaning the onset of what they view as growing socialism in the United States. They hate that we have, in their minds, become a welfare state. But then, sometimes in moments of self-reflection, they acknowledge that the government has likely gotten involved because the church wasn't handling her own business. In Rome the secular government acknowledged that the Christians were taking better care of her people than the government was. We don't have that same problem in the States. Many Christians acknowledge that we would have less intrusion, waste, and handouts from the government if only the church would value life and participate in self-sacrifice more, Unfortunately, I often hear from the same conservative Christian group that legislation is the answer for the moral ills in the United States. So what is it - a bottom up approach or a top down one? 

I would argue that a marriage to the state, an embracing of legislation, and a top-down approach is not at all the answer. Early Rome had gladiatorial events, temple prostitution, state laws requiring worship of Caesar and the gods, slavery, and the list goes on. The Roman state changed for the good by leaps and bounds before Christianity began to be legislated, when there was a bottom up approach. When Christians really lived as Christ taught them to, that seeped out of their everyday lives, into the local communities, and into the nation - long before any Christian was an emperor. While just war theorists can embrace this same sort of notion and recognize the importance of the church, the approach of Christian pacifism highlights and underlines this notion. Christian pacifism places the lever of power on the Church, the gospel, and the Christian life rather than armies, governments, etc. ​
0 Comments
<<Previous
    *The views and ideas on this site are in no way affiliated with any organization, business, or individuals we are a part of or work with. They're also not theological certainties. They're simply thinking out loud, on issues and difficulties as I process things.

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Abortion Counterrebuttals
    Afterlife
    Apologetics
    Atheism
    Baptism
    Christian Life
    Church
    Cosmology
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    Death
    Free Will
    Generosity And Wealth
    G.K. Chesterton
    Government
    Grace And Mercy
    Incarnation
    Inerrancy
    Joy
    Love
    Materialism
    Meaningpurpose
    Media
    Ministry-and-outreach
    Morality
    On-guard
    Pacifism
    Pacifism-counterrebuttals
    Podcast
    Poetry
    Politics
    Politics-of-jesus
    Pragmatism And Consequentialism
    Prayer
    Problem-of-evil
    Race-and-unity
    Rapid Fire
    Rebellion
    Reformed
    Relationships
    Salvation
    Social-issues
    Social-justice
    Sovereignty-of-god
    Spirit
    Spiritual-warfare
    Spontaneous-expansion-of-the-church
    Suffering
    Tradition
    Trinity
    When-helping-hurts


    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2013
    March 2009
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007

    RESOURCES

    Check out some of our favorite online resources for theology and apologetics by clicking on the images below. 

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly