Some anti-pacifists claim that while pacifists proclaim love, their actions of non-violence can actually be examples of something that is unloving. They claim that if I had access to a weapon and were to see an innocent person in the process of being raped, murdered, tortured, etc - and if I didn't use that weapon to save the innocent person from harm - then I would actually be unloving. To be able to stop harm from befalling someone and to not do it, would be wrong for me.
Most Christians will agree with the above sentiment. Unfortunately, they lose too much when they believe such a thing. This charge of failing to secure the protection of someone is the same charge critics levy against God. If God truly loves people, and if he is truly capable of stopping evil, then all of these bad things that occur shouldn't happen. I shouldn't have the opportunity to stop a rape by shooting the attacker because I should be able to trust that God will stop it - if he loves us and can stop evil. Surely if I can stop evil with a gun, God could stop evil with his word. But God often doesn't stop evil. So is God unloving? Is he incapable? Or is there a reason every evil man and woman aren't destroyed prior to, or upon the commission of an evil act? If pacifists are guilty of "inaction" and an action that is "unloving," then surely the same accusation applies to God.
Pacifists, however, understand that the most loving action might not always produce the results we want with the expediency we want. Instead of killing an assailant, it may mean talking to them. Instead of killing an attacker, it may mean enduring their attack, then looking them in the eyes with forgiveness at trial. It may mean taking in refugees or a persecuted group in your country under penalty of prison or death, rather than taking up arms against another. Rather than inaction, pacifism produces an action that can be infused with far greater bravery than those who bear arms. And in so choosing a life of self-sacrifice and endurance - a life that faces evil and power with humility and love - the message of Christ can be heard and validated. How will our enemies hear the gospel if they're dead? How will they take in the gospel if we have not modeled that we, like we claim of our God, will die that our enemies may truly live? Pacifistic action does not use inaction as its means, but rather implements the means of God. Pacifism is not human pragmatism. It doesn't view our goal as the prevention of our suffering because we're innocent, for this is not what Christ modeled to us. Pacifism embraces the means of God for the purposes of God, even though this may be foolishness to the world.
In the end, God has given the sword to the government. It is the government's role to punish. The same Bible that says this is by no means ignorant as to the great evil that government may embody. The church was on the receiving end of much harsh persecution. They understood that governments can be corrupt. Nevertheless, they also understood that God is sovereign over the institution to whom he gives the sword, and they understood the means that God had given to the church to use, which conflict greatly with a Christian's use of this sword (see church father quotes). The Christians of the early church embraced the suffering Christ had promised would be theirs, submitted to the authorities God had ordained rather than claiming they were illegitimate, and loved unto death rather than seeking to preserve their own lives.
Pacifism is the most loving action one can have. It elevates all life, even the life of enemies. It says that another's life is more important than my own and more important than any suffering I may have to endure. It says that I will put my life on the line to help others even though I myself am defenseless. It says that the message of the gospel is more important than my life, and I will abstain from taking my assailant's life so that they might one day have the opportunity to hear explained what they see me demonstrate in the laying down of my life.
Most Christians will agree with the above sentiment. Unfortunately, they lose too much when they believe such a thing. This charge of failing to secure the protection of someone is the same charge critics levy against God. If God truly loves people, and if he is truly capable of stopping evil, then all of these bad things that occur shouldn't happen. I shouldn't have the opportunity to stop a rape by shooting the attacker because I should be able to trust that God will stop it - if he loves us and can stop evil. Surely if I can stop evil with a gun, God could stop evil with his word. But God often doesn't stop evil. So is God unloving? Is he incapable? Or is there a reason every evil man and woman aren't destroyed prior to, or upon the commission of an evil act? If pacifists are guilty of "inaction" and an action that is "unloving," then surely the same accusation applies to God.
Pacifists, however, understand that the most loving action might not always produce the results we want with the expediency we want. Instead of killing an assailant, it may mean talking to them. Instead of killing an attacker, it may mean enduring their attack, then looking them in the eyes with forgiveness at trial. It may mean taking in refugees or a persecuted group in your country under penalty of prison or death, rather than taking up arms against another. Rather than inaction, pacifism produces an action that can be infused with far greater bravery than those who bear arms. And in so choosing a life of self-sacrifice and endurance - a life that faces evil and power with humility and love - the message of Christ can be heard and validated. How will our enemies hear the gospel if they're dead? How will they take in the gospel if we have not modeled that we, like we claim of our God, will die that our enemies may truly live? Pacifistic action does not use inaction as its means, but rather implements the means of God. Pacifism is not human pragmatism. It doesn't view our goal as the prevention of our suffering because we're innocent, for this is not what Christ modeled to us. Pacifism embraces the means of God for the purposes of God, even though this may be foolishness to the world.
In the end, God has given the sword to the government. It is the government's role to punish. The same Bible that says this is by no means ignorant as to the great evil that government may embody. The church was on the receiving end of much harsh persecution. They understood that governments can be corrupt. Nevertheless, they also understood that God is sovereign over the institution to whom he gives the sword, and they understood the means that God had given to the church to use, which conflict greatly with a Christian's use of this sword (see church father quotes). The Christians of the early church embraced the suffering Christ had promised would be theirs, submitted to the authorities God had ordained rather than claiming they were illegitimate, and loved unto death rather than seeking to preserve their own lives.
Pacifism is the most loving action one can have. It elevates all life, even the life of enemies. It says that another's life is more important than my own and more important than any suffering I may have to endure. It says that I will put my life on the line to help others even though I myself am defenseless. It says that the message of the gospel is more important than my life, and I will abstain from taking my assailant's life so that they might one day have the opportunity to hear explained what they see me demonstrate in the laying down of my life.
RSS Feed