• Home
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get In Touch
  • Catechism
  • Videos
    • Sermons
  • Newsletters
  • Home
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get In Touch
  • Catechism
  • Videos
    • Sermons
  • Newsletters
   

St. Cyril tells us that it is possible to do two goods - to pray for our enemies and defend our friends. Don't pacifists create a false dichotomy between loving enemies and loving friends?

4/6/2014

0 Comments

 
It's important to look at Cyril's quote because I think he succinctly and eloquently explains how most non-pacifists feel. 

Taken from this site: ​
St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs was approached one day by some Christians who were facing opposition from Islamic militants.  They mentioned the passage from Matthew about turning the other cheek, and wanted to know if such a statement from our Lord prevented any Christian of a good conscience from serving in the military.  His enlightened response is useful:

St. Cyril said: “If two commandments were written in one law and given to men for fulfilling, which man would be a better follower of the law: The one who fulfilled one commandment or the one who fulfilled both?’

The Saracens replied: “Undoubtedly, he who fulfills both commandments.”
​

St. Cyril continued: “Christ our God commands us to pray to God for those who persecute us and even do good to them, but He also said to us, ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13). That is why we bear the insults that our enemies cast at us individually and why we pray to God for them. However, as a society, we defend one another and lay down our lives, so that the enemy would not enslave our brethren, would not enslave their souls with their bodies, and would not destroy them in both body and soul.” (From the Prologue of Ochrid)
St. Cyril makes at least two missteps here. First - and hopefully you see by now this is a common mistake - he assumes that to not take up arms is inactivity. It's choosing not to love your neighbor and disobeying Christ's command to do so. But that's not the case. Christians could harbor Christian refugees, provide resources, helped them to flee, stand in solidarity for what is morally right and be killed as well, etc. These actions wouldn't have been effective in halting the Islamic advance. The Muslims would advance, the Christians and those who aided them would be harmed, and the laying down of one's life would be ineffective in bringing safety for Christians. But you can't say that if you abstain from taking up violence yourself that you aren't doing anything to love your neighbor. 

Second, Cyril, like most non-pacifists, views pragmatism as defined by humanity too highly. Cyril might argue that if the Saracens didn't take up arms to defend their neighbors, then what good would they do? But as a Christian, my job is not to determine the ends God brings about, but rather to use the means he has prescribed for me. If violence is wrong - if repaying evil for evil is wrong - then those means are off limits for me as a Christian. I can't redefine morality. Perhaps killing an aggressor is less evil than being an aggressor (if you can somehow kill the aggressor without hatred), but it's still an evil. Let me give an example that I think most Christians would agree to, and then apply that to the pacifistic position. 

One of the books we read for family devotions has a story in it about a moral choice. The bread winner of a family is asked to do something immoral at work (fudging numbers or something like that). His boss tells him that if he refuses to do it, he'll be fired. The man refuses to participate in the moral action and loses his job. Most Christians would agree that this is the right thing to do, even if they'd have a hard time doing it themselves. 

But now what if this family was living paycheck to paycheck. One lost day of work means a day without meals, and more than one day missed means going without utilities, being able to pay rent, etc. They have no family to turn to and their church is filled with impoverished people who cannot help as well. It is the job of the parents to provide for their family. Does the family's dire situation mean that the father should choose to fudge the numbers and keep his job so he can provide for his family? What about if the immoral action was to set up a co-worker so the employer had just-cause to fire them, and then that individual would not be able to provide for their family. What about single mothers with no skillset and no ability to get any job but the job of a prostitute? Not at all. None of these things are justified, and you only have to walk the hypothetial moral compromise down the line until you get to something someone considers so immoral, they'd have to cave. We know that immoral means are not excused on account of our notions of pragmatism. Now we might be able to empathize with someone who chose to do the wrong thing and keep their job. We might be able to feel sympathy for the impoverished single mom who is a prostitute. It's a tough situation to be in. But as Christians we still have to call these acts immoral. We must fiercely love those who choose immorality, just as we love our neighbors and our enemies, but we must not take on evil ourselves in order to accomplish what we determine to be God's ends. 

Doing violence to another is the same sort of thing as the scenario above. Just as we aren't to be immoral in our workplace, we are not to do violence to image bearers of God. That is not a moral means we Christians have at our disposal. The situation may be very dire. I may be able to empathize with someone who does violence in certain situations. I may even feel joy when I see violence done to someone like a Hitler or a Stalin. I may one day use violence myself against another human being because I am too weak to submit to the means of God. We can empathize all we want with the use of violence for self-defense, just as we can empathize with a parent who chooses immoral means to provide for their family. But difficulty in implementing the moral means doesn't legitimize or moralize choosing the immoral means. 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    *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
    Atonement
    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
    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

    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    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