# Christian pacifism and reformed position



## kappazei (Jun 12, 2012)

Is Christian pacifism contrary to historic reformed theology?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 12, 2012)

Define what you mean by Christian Pacifism.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 13, 2012)

If Christian pacifism refers to the advocacy of total nonviolence in all realms of society, including opposition towards capital punishment, all warfare, and self-defense, then it most certainly is contrary to historic Reformed theology. These views are expressly opposed in the Reformed confessions:



> It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasion.
> (Westminster Confession 23.2)





> THE DUTY OF THE MAGISTRATE. The chief duty of the magistrate is to secured and preserve peace and public tranquillity. Doubtless he will never do this more successfully than when he is truly God-fearing and religious; that is to say, when, according to the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, he promotes the preaching of the truth and sincere faith, roots out lies and all superstition, together with all impiety and idolatry, and defends the Church of God. We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate.
> 
> Let him, therefore, hold the Word of God in his hands, and take care lest anything contrary to it is taught. Likewise let him govern the people entrusted to him by God with good laws made according to the Word of God, and let him keep them in discipline, duty and obedience. Let him exercise judgment by judging uprightly. Let him not respect any man's person or accept bribes. Let him protect widows, orphans and the afflicted. Let him punish and even banish criminals, impostors and barbarians. For he does not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4).
> 
> ...





> Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words; oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
> (Westminster Larger Catechism 136)



It would be necessary to reject the Reformed view of the Law in order to create a theology hospitable towards a pacifist ethic. As a former pacifist, I can tell you that I changed my views as I came to accept the perpetuity of the moral law.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 13, 2012)

This:


Dearly Bought said:


> and let them obey all his *just and fair* commands.


And this:


Dearly Bought said:


> And if the *public safety of the country and justice require it*, and the magistrate of necessity wages war, let them even lay down their life and pour out their blood for the public safety and that of the magistrate.


Both require some level of prudence on the part of subjects, does it not? Who is biblically authorized to make the determinations called for in these? The magistrate? Church Elders? Individuals?


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 13, 2012)

Since we are required to actively defend innocent life, including our own, armaments seem to me to be an absolute necessity. I would very cheerfully be a gun or arms dealer.

Would I sell a gun to a man I know likes to rob banks? No. Would I sell arms to a country that I know likes to wage unjust wars? No. Nor would I sell rope to man who plans to hang himself. But there is no sin in selling rope in general.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 13, 2012)

Bob, my above response really references more your post in another thread, wherein you admired a brother who divested himself of an investment that involved armaments.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 13, 2012)

If you mean pacifism in that Christians cannot serve in the military or go to war. Than there is no Reformed, and as far as I see it, no correct argument within Christianity for it. For instance many soldiers went to John the Baptist and when he told them to repent he didn't say "Stop fighting, leave the army", he told them to listen to their officers, to accept their fair wages, and not to defraud.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 13, 2012)

God does not prevent nations from ever waging war. He many times commanded Israel to engage in it.

Nations engaging in just war is an entirely different thing than personal violence.

As an aside to your point,

Other than end slavery, Fascism, and Communist world denomination, what good has war ever done? 
Really?


----------



## Dwimble (Jun 13, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Other than end slavery, Fascism, and Communist world denomination, what good has war ever done?


Sounds like a Monty Python sketch...

"_...but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?_


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Dwimble said:


> "...but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?




Profound points in good humor, indeed.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 13, 2012)

When it comes down to it, pacifists can only remain pacifists because someone else is doing the fighting for them.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 13, 2012)

jwithnell said:


> When it comes down to it, pacifists can only remain pacifists because someone else is doing the fighting for them.



As a former pacifist, I would like to note that this line of argument will not be found particularly compelling. There is a strain of pacifists who are more than willing to die rather than take a human life. It is better to challenge their understanding of the morality of violence.


----------



## kappazei (Jun 13, 2012)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Define what you mean by Christian Pacifism.



When I say pacifism, I do mean as in conscientious objection. There's lots of Mennonite churches around my area and their stance resonates with the liberal climate of Canada's Westcoast.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 13, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> Since we are required to actively defend innocent life, including our own, armaments seem to me to be an absolute necessity. I would very cheerfully be a gun or arms dealer.



And I would happily buy from you! 

Beretta, anybody?


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 13, 2012)

I believe Jesus tells His apostles in Luke "let he who has no sword go and sell his garment and buy one."

While there may be a spiritual application to this, the text seems to be pointing to a literal sword (Yes, I know the sword in question was more like an elongated dagger for self-defense, but still....)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 13, 2012)

Dearly Bought said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes down to it, pacifists can only remain pacifists because someone else is doing the fighting for them.
> ...



The point is that pacifists can remain alive because evil is being restrained and punished by another. The issue is not whether they would be willing to lay down their lives but that there would be none alive left to lay down their lives if it were not for the blessing God gives us through magistrates, which gift pacifists consider evil.


----------



## kappazei (Jun 13, 2012)

Thank you Bryan Peters for poining out the Articles re, the Reformed position on this topic.




Miss Marple said:


> Since we are required to actively defend innocent life, including our own, armaments seem to me to be an absolute necessity. I would very cheerfully be a gun or arms dealer.



Wouldn't your premise, "Since we are required to actively defend innocent life" fall down when weapons are sold to our 'allies' with questionable human rights records? Especially as an arms dealer, one would be required to turn a profit against rival companies who wouldn't be a ethical as you.

And let's not kid ourselves. Historically the West has done this and are doing it. I've been subscribing to [email protected] and the amount of money that is being exchanged hands over weapons is simply obscene. How many of us actually look through our mutual funds anyway?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 13, 2012)

kappazei said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Define what you mean by Christian Pacifism.
> ...



Interesting that you say that, we had a guy get kicked out of the Marine Corps because he claimed that. Indeed, he was using it just to get out of the Corps, but it worked nonetheless. However, I think previous posts in this thread have done very well in responding to your question. There is no biblical warrant for pacificism. Especially in the military. They are there to provide "the sword" for "the state".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 13, 2012)

kappazei said:


> Thank you Bryan Peters for poining out the Articles re, the Reformed position on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, we live in reality. No matter how much you try to stop someone from selling weapons to a criminal, the criminal will still find a way. The idea of no weapons, no violence, and forever peace is nice, but it will never be real, nor is it biblical accurate. Man is evil, and will always be evil... continually.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 13, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> > jwithnell said:
> ...



If one were a Christian pacifist, this still wouldn't necessarily hold much weight since one might believe that God would restrain evil and possibly change hearts through other methods, such as non-violent resistance.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jun 13, 2012)

John Knox took up the broadsword.
Also, The covenanters fought many a battle for the faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 13, 2012)

Dearly Bought said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Dearly Bought said:
> ...


I'm not interested in what holds "weight" to those who cavil about such things. We don't speculate about how God restrains evil but appeal to the Word which explicitly states how God has ordained the restraint and punishment of evil as well as what He has positively commanded about the defense of life and the punishment of evil doers. There is a reason why the anabaptists have been historically considered wicked for their impious denial not only God's authority in magistrates but also what the 6th Commandment forbids and requires of men.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 13, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm not interested in what holds "weight" to those who cavil about such things. We don't speculate about how God restrains evil but appeal to the Word which explicitly states how God has ordained the restraint and punishment of evil as well as what He has positively commanded about the defense of life and the punishment of evil doers. There is a reason why the anabaptists have been historically considered wicked for their impious denial not only God's authority in magistrates but also what the 6th Commandment forbids and requires of men.



Rich, I'm on your side. I'm just trying to help everyone understand how to persuade a Christian pacifist of the Scriptural truth. My point is that we should not make hypothetical arguments about what might happen if everyone was pacifist, but we should instead appeal directly to the Word as you have said.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 13, 2012)

Dearly Bought said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not interested in what holds "weight" to those who cavil about such things. We don't speculate about how God restrains evil but appeal to the Word which explicitly states how God has ordained the restraint and punishment of evil as well as what He has positively commanded about the defense of life and the punishment of evil doers. There is a reason why the anabaptists have been historically considered wicked for their impious denial not only God's authority in magistrates but also what the 6th Commandment forbids and requires of men.
> ...



I wasn't making a hypothetical argument. I was making a factual statement. The hypothetical is a universe in which pacifism is a Christian virtue or in which God acts contrary to His Word. My point is that pacifists can only exist because, in the real world, God has ordained ministers to prevent anarchy. Pacifists live under the blessing of God's condition but they refuse to thank God for that which restrains evil and they call God's good provision an evil thing.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 13, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I wasn't making a hypothetical argument. I was making a factual statement. The hypothetical is a universe in which pacifism is a Christian virtue or in which God acts contrary to His Word. My point is that pacifists can only exist because, in the real world, God has ordained ministers to prevent anarchy. Pacifists live under the blessing of God's condition but they refuse to thank God for that which restrains evil and they call God's good provision an evil thing.



Sure, but since a pacifist has assumed the moral propriety of pacifism, we should focus on proving that God has indeed given the power of the sword to civil government. I'm not saying that your point is illegitimate but rather that it assumes the morality which we need to first prove from Scripture. As such, it is not helpful in convincing a Christian pacifist to accept the Scriptural view. They'll immediately write you off because they assume another moral standard. It's almost like an evidentialist vs. presupp thing.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 13, 2012)

Bob, are you considering the position yourself? If so, what are the sticky issues for you?


----------



## kappazei (Jun 13, 2012)

Dearly Bought said:


> Bob, are you considering the position yourself? If so, what are the sticky issues for you?



Oh, I'm not considering becoming a pacifist. I just posted on the 'boycotting companies' thread a story about a friend who sold off his stocks when he found out that it received a military contract. I admire the fact that he was willing to put his stock portfolio where his mouth is. Sticky issues? I don't think I should be trading in stocks from companies that sell weapons. But how far am I willing to go? Even General Electric and Boeing are involved if one wants to take it that far.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 13, 2012)

kappazei said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> > Bob, are you considering the position yourself? If so, what are the sticky issues for you?
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. I have qualms about arms investments, but they have more to do with the ethics of the companies involved. As Mrs. Rothenbuhler stated above, I don't have a problem with the sale of weapons themselves. I would be particularly concerned with the customers of said companies, etc. I commend you for attempting to take God's Law seriously in every area of your life. I would definitely advise you not to go against your conscience, for that would be sin.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 14, 2012)

"How many of us actually look through our mutual funds anyway?"

To Bob:

I have a gift for diverging from the original thread on this and many boards, so with that disclaimer, let me say that I could not comfortably put my money in a mutual fund or whatever unless it was definitely screened for various evils. That would be an interesting thread topic for discussion.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 14, 2012)

To the OP and the request for a textual discussion of the issue:

The Luke 22:36 passage would certainly have to be considered: as the disciples were facing their greatest physical danger (with Jesus departing) they were instructed to sell their coats if necessary to buy a sword. At the very least, this should have been to provide self-protection. During His arrest, Jesus makes it clear that the weapons were not to be used to physically rebel against those in authority (Luke 22:50-53), but he did not rebuke the disciples for having swords. 

If military force is not warranted by a sovereign nation, why did God use this instrument over and over to establish His nation and to defend if from surrounding powers? And why did Jesus not condemn the Romans and their military might? He even required his followers to pay taxes to them.


----------



## kappazei (Jun 14, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> I have a gift for diverging from the original thread on this and many boards, so with that disclaimer, let me say that I could not comfortably put my money in a mutual fund or whatever unless it was definitely screened for various evils.


I can respect that!


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 14, 2012)

Moderation

I haven't been following the thread lately, but this is not the politics forum. Everyone, please return to the original topic or else the thread gets moved to Politics.

A reminder: the topic was about the Reformed view of what is called Christian pacifism, not about what a Christian should do under an unjust government, and not about current political policy.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 15, 2012)

Hopefully in line with the moderator's comments - Brad, I don't know why you are missing my repeated comments that a person whose conscience does not allow them to fight should not fight. You seem to be under the impression I am saying the opposite, and running down the field with that.

I think the best thing to do, if you are a pacifist, is not to enlist. If you suddenly become aware of your pacifism while enlisted, you need to consider things like just war concepts. Also, the 6th commandment (no murder), the 8th commandment (no stealing) and the 9th (no false witness) need to come into play.

The 6th, because if you abandon your squad/troop/unit whatever, you are leaving them with a missing man which makes them more vulnerable. While another man can presumably be pulled in from somewhere, this should still be considered. You are damaging your fellow soldiers. To what degree is variable.

The 8th, because as I mentioned above, your fellow citizens have invested money in you, sometimes considerable money with very valuable weaponry and training and benefits, in return for your pledge to serve. Should you decide not to serve, it seems to me you have an 8th commandment problem.

The 9th, because you voluntarily swore an oath to serve. Sinful oaths should not be kept. Then again of course they should not be made.

As for being an armchair warrior, I plead guilty, as I suppose all Christian women must.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 15, 2012)

If you look at the OT law you find a very high view of human life. To stand by and allow evil men to kill others for any reason would violate the moral principles imbedded in the law of God. Such a concern for human life has not, in my mind, been abrogated by the New Testament. The only difference is Martyrdom. To die for the Gospel should be nonviolent but to willingly die for some other reason would be to violate these principles. Not only is wrong to take a life either carelessly or intentional (not in self defense) but it is also wrong to allow environments that promote the taking of human life, Pacifism for instance.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 17, 2012)

kappazei said:


> Is Christian pacifism contrary to historic reformed theology?



Thread closed. Few were interested in answering the OP and providing historical context. Let me remind everyone that we have a P&G forum and to exercise self-government when in another forum.


----------

