The constitutional right to bear arms is technically about the right of an individual to defend and protect themselves and their family against intruders and those who wish to do them harm.
I need to do a lot more thinking and study in this area, but in general, I fully support such a right, and believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is valuable, important, and necessary in a world such as ours.
I do sometimes wonder, however, what Jesus would have thought about the right to bear arms, and the subject of self-defense.
Would Jesus Own a Gun?
After all, He would not even allow Peter to raise a sword in His defense (Matt 26:52), nor did He utter a word in self-defense at His trial when false accusations were leveled against Him (Matt 27:12-14).
But self-defense is a complex issue, and it is not primarily the issue that concerns me here.
My main concern is with what seems to be the duty and obligation of our churches to provide moral support for the wars of our nation against other countries and against some within our own borders.
I get quite concerned when churches and church leaders preach and teach about our responsibility a to kill, bomb, and destroy other people in the name of freedom and justice—or worse yet, in the name of Jesus.
Can Violence Put an End to Violence?
We see the evil and terror that goes on in other countries, and think that as the moral guardians of the world, it is our responsibility to bring evildoers to justice, and to right what is wrong in this world.
This seems honorable. Is it not the responsibility of those with power to use that power to protect the weak, and advance the cause of freedom and justice? Yes, it is.
The problem, however, is when people use violence as the means by which they attempt to protect the weak and advance freedom and justice. One of the greatest myths in all of history is the idea that violence against others is the only way to stop the spread of violence. This is called the myth of redemptive violence.
Nearly every book and movie contains this great myth, and almost everyone believes it, despite the fact that history has proven time and time again that violence will never put an end to violence. Yet nevertheless, we train our children in this myth from the moment they are born. Even most cartoons and children’s books are based on the myth that violence must be used to defeat violence. (For the best discussion on this subject I have ever read, see Engaging the Powers
The example of Jesus and the call of the Gospel contain no evidence that violence toward others has anything to do with following Jesus into the world. We will look at this idea more in future posts.
Although our wars are often framed in terms of “defending ourselves” and as a Christian duty, that is often political rhetoric in my opinion. Many of our conflicts are really fought to advance or subdue certain political causes. Did sending my friends to Vietnam to die and to be mutilated defeat communism? I cannot remember the last time I heard anyone make that claim – must have be like 1969.
Living where I do and knowing many people who make their living in the “defense industry”, I tend to think that many wars are often just that – an industry designed to make profits for certain people and to keep unemployment figures lower.
That may be true. There is so much that could be done in this country, though, if we just opened our eyes to the possibilities.
I’m sorry if I’m hitting a sensitive topic when I note your question: “Did sending my friends to Vietnam to die and to be mutilated defeat communism?” But it’s the implication here that I’d disagree with, I don’t believe it should matter at all whether we were successful or not in defeating communism. If it is the right thing to do to oppose something, it is the right thing to do whether you are successful or not.
That point aside, I certainly agree with the larger premise, that we shouldn’t assume a cause is worth fighting for simply because it is being portrayed publicly and politically that way.
Being born in the Falkland Islands I am an English Citizen and have live in England since I was 7. On July the 8th I will be 70. I have heard and read about wars but have never been in one but when I came to the United Kingdom I was aware of the consequences of war as there were resrictions on all foods and I remember going to the various shops for my mum with our Coupon Book.
I remember the first time I saw a man with a gun when I was in my early thirties. We went on a cheap holiday to spain and at the airport all the security people carried guns. I found it unnerving and was glad this was not something we had back home,
Over the years we read and even see on our televisions the consequences of the right in the USA to carry weapons. In Manchester where we live there are areas we would not go to as gangs with weapons carry out robbery with violence, thankfully this is not a regular issue in our country.
What has this to do with war. I agree with Sam that our reasons or should I say excuses for going to war are dubious at best. When we analyze the past wars with Germany the causes were because we were pig headed, prideful and stubborn before the wars were perpetrated by our perceived enemy, we then went to war with the excuse of self defence and dragged in the rest of the world.
The West’s fear of communism drew America into the Vietnam conflict and the Cold War with the USSR and China and their neighbor Cuba. The latest is Islam mainly with the Arab countries. Justification is used on the basis of protecting people from their repressive governments, sound’s applaudable but we only get involved in a war where a particular country has an excess of oil and other desirable materials, while other countries which are also suffering from tyrannical regimes we ignore or give a tacit wagging of the finger at. Look at Burma, still struggling but as soon as we see an opportunity to make money out of it, off goes our PM to make business deals.
Am I a cynic?.
Would Jesus defend Himself, Yes. Would He kill another human being, No. He, Jesus was to be the example to us all on how to live. Lets not use him as an excuse to go to war and then justify the killing fields.
Clive
Clive,
Yes. Jesus was not a pacifist, but nor was He violent. He found a third way between the two of standing up for Himself and others that proved their dignity and value as human beings.
Jeremy,
You said, “Yes. Jesus was not a pacifist.” Please define the word “pacifist.” John Yoder’s book “Nevertheless” describes 29 different forms of pacifism. The following quote comes from the book “Blood Guilt: Christian Responses to America’s War on Terror” (http://covenant.nu):
— snip 8< —
The claim that "Jesus was not a pacifist" is an example of the fallacy of ambiguity, sometimes also referred to as equivocation, where an orator tries to build his argument on the uncertainty of words or on a term that has multiple meanings. Because pacifism is an abstract term and means different things to different people, the claim that "Jesus was not a pacifist" becomes as pointless and misleading as saying "Jesus was not a liberal" or "Jesus was not a conservative." Without knowing which of the many forms of pacifism (or liberalism or conservatism) one is referring to, no premise that is built around the word can be argued logically one way or the other.
— snip 8< —
Pieter
Pieter,
Right. There are so many different forms of pacifism. I had the vague, nebulous, undefined “pacifism” in mind, the kind that is against all violence, and all war, no matter what.
I don’t think Jesus was that kind of pacifist. I have not read that book by Yoder, but it sounds very good.
I believe Luke 3:14 is instructive as to the fact that a soldier was considered a profession of acceptance to our Lord. The idea of blind patriotism can and has been an issue. I personally believe the USA is a Cjristian Client State (borrowed from RB Theime) and as such is a light for the rest of the world. I look at the wars the USA has been involved in and see little in common with other countries wars to occupy, denude the country of resources and wealth and leave the country worse off for the endeavor. For the most part the USA has rebuilt and protected the native peoples. I believe pacifism is immoral and is not realistic. Innocents need protection. There is a gung ho mentatlity to some and war is hell. Having served aboard ship during Vietnam and picking up boat people fleeing Indochina before and during the North Vietnamese and Combodian and Laocean genocide I can honestly say that despite the negatives of Vietnam the motives were not to kill and maim for the most part. I met a girl who was Christian and her family had been killed execution style and the realization that we had a higher mission was very apparent to me. None the less we must be careful to not glorify war and death.
MarkR,
That is a good point. The soldiers were not instructed to leave their profession.
There is so much to this issue. I love and support our military personnel. They are some of the greatest citizens of our country. But sometimes I wonder…. if they are the brightest and best… why are we sending them off to kill and be killed?
With all due respect I do not believe the goal has anything to do with being sent off to kill or be killed. I believe the world to be a place of extreme danger and violence and the fact is man is NOT good. Wars are not good but many times unfortunately necessary. The USA is to me a country which HAS NOT done what any country in history with its power has done- and that is gooble up territory of conquered lands. The fact is we are NOT perfect and bad things are done by us as we are fallen as well. My problem is the kneejerk hatred of American power which won two world wars and the cold war and the fact that we yes WE protected Europe for years and still without our military presence many of the countries of Europe (who by the way will not arm and participate) would be overrun first by the USSR and later by Islamofascists. So many Americans have NOT been outside their own country and have not experienced the violence and lack of freedom of so many of these areas of the world (not Europe-but so many others). It disturbs me that so many refuse to acknowledge the greatness of this nation and I respect criticism but historical ignorance is at an all time high and the USA seems to be the whipping boy of so many who dont realize the fact that underlying this freedom we enjoy is a lot of blood. I served and my son has done three tours in Iraq. Never was a sense of “lets get violent on those folks” mentality present- it has nothing to do with death as a goal one way or another- it does primarily have to do with protecting the freedoms and liberties we enjoy. Tyranny is the most common lot of man and a democratic-republicn form of government based upon Biblical principles of limited government and balance of powers is unusual and requires the greatest degree of protection than any other. A great book to read is “Liberty and Tyranny” and “Ameritopia” by Mark Levin as it gives concise reasons for where we are and where we come from.–Sorry for the long drawn out response however I am passionate about our military and its proper understanding in my view.
Our constitution didn’t allow for a standing army which means full time soldiers ready to strike. Both the Revolutionary war and the Civil war was fought by regular citizens who were called to fight.
We may have state militias though.
Mark,
You wrote, “a soldier was considered a profession of acceptance to our Lord.” Can you provide us with a chapter and verse where Jesus approved of the profession of soldiering for his disciples?
You make reference to the Roman centurion who had faith that Jesus could heal the sick. However, you fail to consider that the Gentiles at that time were outside of the hope of Israel (“for salvation is of the Jews”). There was no reason for Jesus to be either commending or condemning the career choice of a Gentile “dog.” Putting forward the example of the Roman centurion and his faith in Jesus’s ability to heal the sick is simply a distraction that keeps us from considering this other question: what would Jesus want his disciples to do?
Pieter
I cant argue against your point. I suppose my point is Jesus did not condemn any profession in general if you want to state it that way. Of course the word acceptance is not equivalent with approval. So you could be right. I think my overall point is that in the realm of history and facts I have observed inside the military and as a student of history that war and conflict is inevitable and certainly pacifism is uusally stated by people who really dont and wouldnt live that way. I always ask a pacifist if he or she would be willing to live without a police department or whether if their own loved ones were threatened by say a man with a knife at their loved ones throat and they had a gun would they use it? Seems to me most people talk the theoretical and live the reality much differently. I once asked a pacifist Christian professor many years ago the above question and he stated he would try and persuade that indivisual to cease and if he wouldnt he still wouldnt come to the conclusion that killing him would be okay. I cant understand that and never will. I think some things are not able to be determined by a strict biblical reference. That being said I believe pacifism is immoral.
Mark,
>> war and conflict is inevitable
Yes, but that does not mean that Christians must be participants and supporters of war. The existence of one does not require the participation of the other.
>> pacifism is usually stated by people who really
>> dont and wouldnt live that way.
I think you are making general statements. First off, define pacifism. As I shared with Jeremy, John Yoder’s book “Nevertheless” describes 29 different forms of pacifism. So which form of pacifism are you referring to?
>> I always ask a pacifist if he or she would be
>> willing to live without a police department
This is a red herring argument. A police department exists when local governments tax its citizens and creates a law enforcement agency. Such an agency is going to exist regardless of whether any pacifists exist within this community or not.
>> whether if their own loved ones were threatened by
>> say a man with a knife at their loved ones throat
>> and they had a gun would they use it?
Your example is flawed. How exactly do you shoot a person who is standing behind your loved one and who has your loved one in a choke grip? If you try shooting the hoodlum and you miss, you end up perhaps killing your loved one.
Regardless, Christians taking up rifles, grenades, etc. and killing for the State and for Caesar is a totally different issue than what to do with a hoodlum in your house.
Jesus said to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and the things that are God’s unto God.” Christians who are members and supporters of a nation’s military are in fact rendering unto Caesar those things that are God’s. Christians who, at the behest of earthly rulers, kill and die for their country, have in effect rendered tribute to the wrong master. The life-blood of a Christian belongs to God. Sacrificing that life in service to Caesar is a direct violation of Jesus’ command to “Render unto…God the things that are God’s.” Caesar’s image can be found on our coins; therefore, we render unto him the taxes he is due. But man is created in the image of God, and both our own life and the lives of others belong to God. Therefore, Christians have no authority to take what belongs to God and render it unto Caesar. This is true whether a Christian soldier is sacrificing his life for the sake of Country, or taking the life of another human in an act of war.
>> I believe pacifism is immoral
Can you please explain 1) what is pacifism, and 2) why is it immoral?
Pieter
I really have made all the statements I want to make on this point. I beleive your logic is flawed and you believe mine is. Thats life. I find your red herring reference ridiculous. However I will go by my life experience and history and the lack of any definitive Biblical reference against war or self defense. I have lived many years with military people and find them far more realistic than the average public person and their experiences- mine and my son’s in particular more than validating. I refuse to go into argument on a micro level on this issue. Thanks though for participating.
Good discussion. I don’t really have anything to add one way or the other. I just wonder how Jesus would have handled “Islamofascists” when He instructed people that when we are struck on one cheek to turn the other also.
Engaging the Powers
by Walter Wink really challenged my thinking in these areas.
I am not sure he has a “realistic” perspective, but then, I cannot refute him, and I have not tried any of his suggestions for how to handle conflict, so maybe it is my view that is unrealistic.
All I know is that in the 6,000 + years of human civilization, there has only been liberty when people could bear arms, and not just that, but they had equal arms as their oppressors. This all completely changed in America in the 1930’s when automatic weapons were invented. Not that I think we should all have machine guns and nukes, but it is completely unbalanced now. (Is my libertarianism obvious? 😉 )
Were there really no cultures previously with liberty? I am not a world historian…
Israel has Liberty, they had weapons. Rome for a season had liberty and they had weapons, Chine had liberty for almost 1,000 years (the dynasties) and they were armed.
Eisenhower said “If you want security, go to prison. You get 3 hots and a cot, medical care, a job and free time. But you lack freedom”
Liberty must be kept (it can be easily lost), and we must have wisdom to use our liberty. (Christ give us liberty, yet we must be wise in our liberty)
Ancient Israel HAD liberty I meant to say.
I wanted to make a point about this Jesus having a third way. I disgress a little here but I have always had trouble with the WWJD mantra in Christian cicles. Why? Because Jesus was One of a Kind and we arent Jesus. A better way for me to understand this is WWJHMD- What would Jesus have me do? When Jesus walked the earth He was human and still God. We walk as human and even as believers who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit we are people with a continuing sin nature who are positionally sanctified and otherwise in process as to experiencial sanctification. I find it very difficult to discern a particular view on war which would be satisifactory to WWJD, however in the WWJHMD I find a more reasonable and understandable idea of seeking God’s will in all matters. Certainly individuals are different than nation states( by this I mean that as individuals our choices are clearer-not that we cannot properly discern whether a particular war is or is not necessary -but even then its much much tougher) and matters of war and peace are very much filled with variables men and women as individuals would have an a very difficult task of unwinding to find some acceptable scenario. As an individual I seek peace when at all possible with all men and I protect and nurture the defenseless and believe that acheiving a perfect article of belief that states war or defense is immoral is the height of prideful arrogance coming from a mere mortal as I myself and others are. This is a complex and not easily definable issue and anyone with “easy” answers in my view is not admitting the fallen and terrible condition of mankind in general and that as much as we would attempt to make categorical statements as to “all war is wrong” or “war is the right soultion” we are making statements that just cant stand up to either biblical exegesis or the reality of the world we live in. I am reminded of the conundrum of the easily remembered story of the Nazi knocking at the door of the Christian house where the Jews are in hiding. Lots of times life on this planet has things like that which occur. I just pray and act as I believe Jesus would have me do. I see no reference condemning soldiers or advocating for them so I see little way of making a definitive statement.
Mark asked, “What would Jesus have me do?”
Jesus said, “Take up your cross and follow me.”
Paul said, “Me imitators of me, just as I am of Christ.”
You can trash the WWJD mantra if you wish, but that doesn’t change the fact that you will never reconcile military service with Christian discipleship. Nor will you be able to retract God’s command to “come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
If unbelievers start wars and kill each other, then let them. Believers, however, are to separate themselves from the unclean beast of the State when it comes to the shedding of blood for the sake of Caesar.
Pieter
Ridiculous and false. Christians fought and died for your freedom. I am done here.
Mark wrote, “Ridiculous and false.”
What exactly is ridiculous and false? That God stated that His children were to “come out from them and be separate…and touch nothing unclean?” That the kingdoms of men have throughout scripture been described as unclean beasts? That Jesus instructed his disciples to flee Jerusalem rather than fight and defend it? That Christians in the early centuries of Christianity were dragged to their deaths and fed to lions without using violence against their adversaries? What exactly here is ridiculous and false?
Mark wrote, “Christians fought and died for your freedom.”
So what exactly does that have to do with following Jesus?
And finally, we have fewer freedoms today than we did in 1776. We have fewer freedoms today than we did before 9-11. So someone is doing a pretty poor job of protecting my freedoms, it would appear.
Pieter
Not all war is killing. Most of it is building relationships, learning, and growing in a positive way from one another. If you have ever been a soldier, you know what I am talking about. That is also what you are taught in the military. Not everyone that becomes a soldier is there to kill. Most really care about the world and want to change it for the better. The government may have hidden agendas but as for the way I interact with the rest of the world is up to me. Side note- I was a “non-believer” during that time in my life but I still contributed more love in this world while being a soldier than those that you consider “believers”. Nothing made me a “non-believer” more than someone ridiculing me for something I did not fully understand, mainly because I did have living examples of it. I am still in this spiritual process of learning and growing but from what I am picking up, Jesus did accept everyone no matter what. He had no thems. Which means you shouldn’t either. We are all in this together. Love always wins and that’s how you change people.
Pieter, a couple times you’ve mentioned the need to define pacifism. This probably isn’t a universally accepted definition, but in the context of this post, I’d say a decent working definition is “being opposed to war for any reason.” I’m sure many people would consider themselves pacifists but say that this is too extreme a definition, one might say for example that pacifism means “attempting to promote peace and making it a goal, but accepting that war is necessary in some cases to prevent greater evils,” however the way violence vs. following Jesus is being discussed in this context doesn’t allow such concessions.
Now, if we accept ‘being opposed to war for any reason’ as a working definition, I would say, I do agree with some of your points in your discussion with MarkR, but disagree with much of your basic premises. For example, when Mark says that war/conflict is inevitable, I would agree with your argument that if it is absolutely wrong to ever go to war, then Christians should still refuse to do so even if other people are going to – except that I don’t agree with your assumption that it is absolutely wrong to ever go to war.
I know the WWJD slogan has been discussed here, and I will say that I believe it to be a great guide for living one’s life – if it’s not misused. That is, it can be used to look at Jesus’ teachings as a guide for general principles; but it cannot be used as a specific literal guide for each action I should take at any moment; otherwise I should still be in the ‘carpentry’ stage in my life. Jesus only lived a single lifetime called to specific roles, as members of the body of Christ we are called to apply the Truths he revealed to us to many more roles. It’s an insufficient argument to say “Jesus didn’t do this during his lifetime so it is something he would never do” (Jesus healed, so Doctor is an OK profession, but he never pulled anyone out of burning buildings, so Firefighters are obviously just following the ways of MAN!).
Of course, none of what I’ve said has proved (or attempted to) prove you wrong, but just that you haven’t proved yourself to be right. If war is wrong, then it follows that we should never go to war, but you have to prove the premise ‘war is wrong’ before you can follow the premise to it’s conclusion. I would say that you’ve not proved it, but nor has MarkR really disproved it.
So I ask you to step back to about as basic a theological question whose answer could inform the correct conclusion here: Is it ever morally justifiable (or even morally good) to act to end another human being’s life?
John, you wrote, “I’d say a decent working definition [of pacifism] is ‘being opposed to war for any reason.'” You also went on to write: “one might say for example that pacifism means ‘attempting to promote peace and making it a goal’.”
I appreciate that you attempted to define pacifism, but as you’ve seen yourself, there is no one definition that can be applied to all “pacifists.”
You also added, “If war is wrong, then it follows that we should never go to war, but you have to prove the premise ‘war is wrong’ before you can follow the premise to it’s conclusion.”
Arguments often result due to the participants failing to stop and define their terms. Such is the case whenever the topics of war and pacifism are brought up in the context of Jesus’ teachings. Another reason parties on both sides often fail to come to an agreement is that they do not stop to define their pronouns. When I speak, am I speaking as a representative of Jesus (as a Christian), or as a representative of my country? When you speak on this topic, are you speaking as a Christian, or as a representative of your country? Moreover, who are the “we” that you are referring to when you write “…then it follows that we should never go to war.” Are the “we” two Christians? Are “we” un-believers? Are the “we” citizens of the same country? Citizens of different countries? Until you define your pronouns, we will most likely never be talking to each other, but over each other. If I am speaking as a Christian, about how Christians should respond to wars, and you are speaking as an unbelieving citizen of Germany, about whether Germans should ever go to war, then we are talking about different issues.
Let me cut to the chase. I am a Christian. I assume I am speaking to another follower of Jesus. I am not speaking to an unbeliever. When I use the pronoun “we,” I am referring to Christians. My position is quite simple. Christian participation in war is a violation of Jesus’ teachings. Is war wrong? The question is too vague. Wrong in what way? God has used war:
1) As a means of removing the children of Israel from a state of bondage to a state of freedom (such as when Gideon delivered the Israelites from under the yoke of the Midianites).
2) As a tool for punishing the idolatrous nations surrounding Israel.
3) As a form of divine judgment upon Israel when they turned away from Him and rebelled against His commandments.
(The above comes from “Blood Guilt: Christian Responses to America’s War on Terror,” page 54).
God clearly uses war, so it would be improper for a Bible believer to say that “war is wrong.” “Because God has chosen war as one means by which He judges the nations, Christians are best advised not to take a stand opposing and objecting to all wars. For when war is used as a form of divine judgment, a pacifist’s opposition to God’s rod of correction would effectively be resisting the will of God. Therefore, if pacifism is defined simply as ‘opposition to war,’ or is summarized by a declaration that all war is wrong, then such definitions are not part of a biblically accurate Christian faith. A more accurate description of what Jesus taught his disciples would be the avoidance of war, not opposition to war. For example, when foretelling Jerusalem’s destruction by “the abomination that causes desolation,” Jesus taught that they should flee rather than fight. We must be careful and stress, however, that an acknowledgement that wars can and have been used by God does not mean that Christians should become active participants in and supporters of such conflicts. The one does not require the other. In this age, it is not the role of a disciple of Christ to bear the sword.” (Blood Guilt, pp. 55-56).
What I am trying to get across is that Christians must respond to war differently than non-Christians. The question should not be, “is war wrong,” but rather, how should Christians respond to war? Even if you toss out the WWJD answer, you will not be able to justify a Christian shedding the blood of another person for the sake of Caesar and the State. There is nothing in the New Testament that instructs Christians to yoke themselves to the unbelieving State for the purpose of killing the enemies of Caesar.
My position is quite simple, but unfortunately too many Christians have lost their identity, failing to distinguish themselves from their unbelieving neighbors when the trumpet of war sounds. God tells His children to “Come out from among them and be separate” and to “touch not the unclean thing.” Few ever do, choosing instead to be melded into the patriotic “we” of whatever nation they happen to be a citizen of. Which is why history is full of the accounts of wars between Christians and Christians. And it is also the reason why so many unbelievers mock Christians – because Christians are often fiercer than wolves, despite the fact that Jesus told his disciples to be innocent as doves. Here’s just one example of such a mocker who nails it on the head: http://youtu.be/KAvDtPz33w0
Pieter
Pieter,
It definitely appears that you have thought through this a lot.
Aside from “Blood Guilt” are there any other books you recommend to learn more about your perspective?
Jeremy,
The only other book of any notable size that comes somewhat close to “Blood Guilt” is Laurence Vance’s “Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State.” Vance’s work is a collection of s that he had posted at various times over the past 10 years at an anti-war web site, therefore it is not as cohesive as “Blood Guilt.” The major difference between Vance’s work and “Blood Guilt” is that the former does not make a clear distinction between Christian and non-Christian as does the latter book. Vance uses the Bible sparingly in defending his position, whereas “Blood Guilt” is totally dependent upon the Bible to make its case. Vance is a believer in just wars. There is no such thing as a just war. “Blood Guilt” has 2 chapters dealing with why the Just War Theory is a useless theory.
“Blood Guilt” was written in the tradition of the Anabaptist sects, and encourages Christians to be separate, not in the sense of creating small rural isolated communities, but rather, to be separate from the participation of the State’s activities of bloodshed. It underscores how Christians need to see themselves as Christians and not as Americans, or British, etc. when it comes to matters of war. The book deals with the topics of war, pacifism, voting, protest, governments, murder versus killing (the 6th commandment), enlistment, military training, torture…all in the context of America’s most recent wars. It is very comprehensive, containing 37 chapters, and has some eye opening stories of Christian complicity in the present and past wars.
Pieter
I love Laurence Vance! He is a somewhat obscure author, but his book on Calvinism is the best!
Thanks for the recommendations.
You can see elsewhere when I talk about Blood Guilt that I’m quite critical of Kapusta, and find a lot of his work to be quite poor exegesis. On the other hand, I don’t agree with all of Vance’s conclusions, but I find his study and criticism in “Christianity and War…” to be top notch analysis.
And Jeremy, if you’re referring to “The Other Side of Calvinism” then I would agree and go so far as to call it the definitive modern text on Calvinism.
Pieter,
I totally agree that a single definition can’t be applied to ‘pacifist’ because different people who call themselves pacifists mean different things, so while acknowledging alternate definitions I tried to use one that fits this conversation and what those advocating pacifism mean, so I’m definitely not trying to say ‘this is what pacifism means’ but that when we use the term pacifism in this conversation, we tend to be talking about being opposed to war completely rather than other definitions of pacifism.
You’re certainly correct that we need to be clear about the terms we are talking about, for example the first two ‘we’s in this sentence refer to you and I specifically, or generally anyone who is engaging in a debate/discussion – but when I said “If war is wrong, then it follows that we should never go to war” the ‘we’ meant Christians, when I’m talking to you I agree that we are talking about what we as followers of Jesus should do, not just generally members of a given country or society should do.
Also, when I discuss “if war is wrong…” by ‘is wrong’ I mean is an act that is evil/sinful/against God’s ways (right now I’m using those three all as synonymous for these purposes; though we could discuss the theological distinctions between them, they are generally the same enough when trying to explain what I mean by ‘is wrong’). What I do NOT mean is that something that ‘is wrong’ cannot be used by God; as you point out Scripture contains plenty of examples of God using Man’s acts of evil to accomplish His purposes, the act is still wrong (evil) and subject to it’s own punishments, even though it accomplished God’s will. A good example is Habakkuk’s presentation of a dialogue between the prophet and God – the prophet’s first complaint is against the sins of Judean society and God explains that he will be using the evils of the invading Chaldeans to punish Judea; the prophet responds by complaining about the evils of the Chaldeans which God then assures will not go unpunished – that they tyranny itself will lead to it’s own punishments and that the punishment for Judea’s sins is itself redemptive and God assures that he will be able to provide salvation.
Therefore, I would say it would be appropriate for you to say that war is wrong, i.e. we should not participate in it even if God will be able to bring about his purposes from it. However, I would again say that you haven’t demonstrated it is wrong.
I agree with most of your quotation from Blood guilt p. 55-56 up until the “We must be careful and stress…” sentence. In this passage he does take some time to consider the problems with outright opposition to war. I also agree with many of both his and your contentions with the way many Christians jump at the chance to go to war. However, I believe that he uses a lot of false premises to reach the conclusion “In this age, it is not the role of a disciple of Christ to bear the sword.”
In Blood Guilt, Kapusta addresses the question I asked earlier, “Is it ever morally justifiable (or even morally good) to act to end another human being’s life?” But he does so poorly by taking a very complex issue, oversimplifying by taking only a few specific passages into consideration (i.e. “Love your enemies,” “Bless those who curse you,” and “Turn the other cheek”), and reaching a single, all-encompassing conclusion. These specific passages show that we should not hate our enemies and our goal should not be to bring violence on them; but he ignores much Scripture (some that he even point out throughout his book) that clearly show that while making ‘violence for the sake of violence’ our goal is sinful, inflicting violence (even to the point of death) a means to a good, redemptive goal is entirely possible.
Forming a whip and driving people away is a clear example that inflicting pain and violence can be performed without necessarily being sinful if it is done to stop a sinful behavior, though it does not show that going as far as killing someone is acceptable. However, while examples like in Habakkuk demonstrate God using an evil and saying “I am using this evil act, it will accomplish my purposes but it is still evil and subject to my punishment as well,” there are also examples of God saying “Go and kill these people, they are taking what is not their’s and doing evil things, I choose you to punish them for it.” (for example taking and defending the Promised Land, and laws that called for death to prevent the criminal from committing further evil). Yes, God in the person of Jesus did not do these things Himself, but to conclude that they are inherently sinful you have to either believe either:
A. The God of the Old Testament was a false god, just like any other god at the time, Jesus was the first and only revelation from God Himself and any reliance of his on Jewish theology was merely a cultural phenomenon where he quoted occasional truths that Jews had happened across while worshiping the false God.
B. Gnostics were correct in that the God of the Old Testament was an evil God who had been ruling over the earth and Jesus was the Good Creator God come to free us from the flesh and the Evil God.
or
C. The God of the Old Testament and Jesus are the same true God (in different persons) but it is not evil for God to tell other people to do evil things as long as he doesn’t have to do it himself (something that is presented as hypocritical in the chief priests who would hire someone to betray Jesus but would not even touch the ‘blood money.’
If you, as I, do not accept any of these ways of rejecting much of Scripture, then you can reasonably conclude that violence and even killing itself is not sinful when used to prevent evil acts and punish evil natures. Jesus’ teaching reprimand the corrupt uses of falsely justifying violence/killing and the evil in our nature that seeks violence for it’s own sake, but He does not remove sound established theological truths and teach that God as we understand Him in the Old Testament (the one He calls Father) is false.
For this reason, when Walter Wink discusses the ‘myth of redemptive violence’ I can (and do) agree wholeheartedly with a statement like Jeremy’s that “One of the greatest myths in all of history is the idea that violence against others is THE ONLY WAY [emphasis mine] to stop the spread of violence.” It is certainly not the only way, and should not by any means be our first response to all situations; however I cannot agree with Wink’s conclusion, as summarized by Jeremy, that “history has proven time and time again that violence will never put an end to violence,” or that violence itself is always an evil action (Wink concludes the latter much more firmly than Jeremy. Jeremy, I know you’ve clarified in a few comments in various posts that it is a more complicated issue than that.)
John wrote: “Therefore, I would say it would be appropriate for you to say that war is wrong, i.e. we should not participate in it even if God will be able to bring about his purposes from it. However, I would again say that you haven’t demonstrated it is wrong.”
———————-
John,
I am not going to make a blanket statement that “war is wrong” unless it is prefaced with “In this dispensation, Christian participation in [war is wrong].” You then state that I haven’t proven that “war is wrong” for Christians. So you want me to provide all of the Scriptural proofs as to why military service is in conflict with Christian discipleship? It seems pretty self-evident. Perhaps you might familiarize yourself with what takes place during boot camp? Soldiering and training one’s fingers to fight cannot be reconciled with imitating and following Christ. Here are some quotes from military enlistees that should remind us how incompatible soldiering is with Christian discipleship:
———– snip 8< ————
We’d run physical training in the morning and every time your left foot hit the deck you’d have to chant “kill, kill, kill, kill.” It was drilled into your mind so much that it seemed like when it actually came down to it, it didn’t bother you, you know?
Every response was “kill,” every chant we had, whether it was in line for the chow hall or PT [physical training] was somehow involved with killing. And not simply killing the enemy, we had one just standing in line for chow which was “1, 2, 3, attack the chow hall, (repeat), Kill the women, Kill the children, Kill, Kill, Kill ’em All.” Constantly using the term “kill” as though it meant nothing was used to desensitize the recruits to the notion of killing and its implications.
The main word was, “Kill. Kill. Kill,” all the time, they then pushed it into your head twenty-four hours a day. Everything you said—even
before you sat down to eat your meals, you had to stand up and scream, “Kill” before you could sit down and eat.
———– snip 8< ————
How much of this can pass the mandate of Romans 12:1–2? "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."
Must I provide you with more Bible proof verses that such practices are not in keeping with having "the mind of Christ"?
John, you wrote: "Forming a whip and driving people away is a clear example that inflicting pain and violence can be performed without necessarily being sinful if it is done to stop a sinful behavior, though it does not show that going as far as killing someone is acceptable."
You may wish to take time and read all of the Temple cleansing passages in the New Testament. What you will find is that there is no reference to the whip ever striking any person. There is no description of bloodshed or pain in the Gospel account. Jesus was not defending himself nor fighting in an army when his zeal for his Father’s house motivated him to act. Moreover, there is no comparison between making a whip and chasing animals out of the Temple and overturning tables with killing humans in war. Are a verbal assault, the overturning of tables and the chasing of animals comparable to the duties of a soldier or the practice and atrocities of warfare? If they are, then it would appear that firing a hellfire missile at an Afghan rebel is now the modern day equivalent of evicting a money-changer!
In his 1940 , “Why the Christian Church is not Pacifist,” Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: “Nothing is more futile and pathetic than the effort of some [Christians] who find it necessary to become involved in the relativities of politics, in resistance to tyranny or in social conflict, to justify themselves by seeking to prove that Christ was also involved in these relativities, that he used whips to drive the money-changers out of the Temple…"
Lastly, I'm surprised that you have become so well acquainted with "Blood Guilt" based upon the few snippets that I have posted here. "Blood Guilt" is nearly 550 pages in length. Have you by chance purchased the book? Have you read the book in its entirety? If you have not, then how can you possibly make critical judgments on the book such as:
"I believe that he uses a lot of false premises to reach the conclusion…"
If you have never read the book, I can't see how you can make the statement: "he uses a lot of false premises." A lot? Perhaps you can convince me that you have read the book by listing perhaps 3 of the false premises by quoting the false premises directly from the author's writing (without copying text from the publisher's web site or from free online snippets of the book)?
You also go on and write:
"[the author] addresses the question I asked earlier, “Is it ever morally justifiable (or even morally good) to act to end another human being’s life?” But he does so poorly by taking a very complex issue, oversimplifying by taking only a few specific passages into consideration (i.e. “Love your enemies,” “Bless those who curse you,” and “Turn the other cheek”), and reaching a single, all-encompassing conclusion."
If you have not read the book, then how is it that you can emphatically conclude that "he [the author] does so poorly…" or that "he ignores much Scripture (some that he even point out throughout his book)"? How can you write as a book reviewer, using a phrase such as "throughout his book" when you've never even possessed the book?
Pieter
Wow, I step away for a few days, and you guys almost start a war! Ha ha! I’m only joking….
I am planning on doing A LOT more reading and study on all of these issues.
I think I really stepped in over my head on some of these posts about war and violence.
I do, however, think that Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is to be out guiding example regarding violence and war. Whatever we may think of the OT or the book of Revelation, we know that as followers of Jesus, we need to look like Him.
For this reason, I am tending to lean more toward a position like that taught in books by Walter Wink, Greg Boyd, John H. Yoder, and Stanley Hauerwas.
God used violence to reconcile us to himself? Violence ended the holocaust? I am certainly anti war but I have found usually nothing is black and white.
That is right. Nothing is black and white.
But I don’t think God used violence to reconcile us to Himself. There are some who believe that, but I don’t.
Luke 22:36 36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.