Handling advocates of pacifism

[Pergamum]

What is your advice about handling those who strongly advocate pacifism and assert that war (for any reason and fought in any way) is not only a natural evil but a moral evil (sin).

In contrast, I believe pacifism is sin in some instances (letting evil roll over you unopposed). But some baptists with whom I interact with are sort of "Anabaptisty" on this issue.

 

[RamistThomist]

What is your advice about handling those who strongly advocate pacifism and assert that war (for any reason and fought in any way) is not only a natural evil but a moral evil (sin).

In contrast, I believe pacifism is sin in some instances (letting evil roll over you unopposed). But some baptists with whom I interact with are sort of "Anabaptisty" on this issue.

Just point out how they are holier than God. Most pacifists I have dealt with moderated their rhetoric when they see how Jesus and John the Baptizer interacted with soldiers. Anyway, and while this is ad hominem, one should point out that historic anabaptism is Gnosticism Redivivus.

 

[arapahoepark]

What is your advice about handling those who strongly advocate pacifism and assert that war (for any reason and fought in any way) is not only a natural evil but a moral evil (sin).

In contrast, I believe pacifism is sin in some instances (letting evil roll over you unopposed). But some baptists with whom I interact with are sort of "Anabaptisty" on this issue.

Just point out how they are holier than God. Most pacifists I have dealt with moderated their rhetoric when they see how Jesus and John the Baptizer interacted with soldiers. Anyway, and while this is ad hominem, one should point out that historic anabaptism is Gnosticism Redivivus.

There was a reason Anabaptism was part of the 'radical' reformation. They didn't seem to be pacifists back then.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Well, pacifism is certainly an important part of the Anabaptist tradition (see Articles 4, 6 of the Schleitheim Confession of 1527). I would expect an Anabaptist to be a pacifist. Just as I would a Quaker. My approach to any of those types would not be to address their pacifism, but their essentially deficient understanding of the gospel.

If I am having such a discussion with someone who does not claim to be Anabaptist, Quaker, etc. and has a clear grasp on the gospel (this is always my first priority), I would point out that pacifism has not historically been part of Western or Eastern Christianity in any of its main branches. It is the case, however, that in more recent decades, many who profess Christianity, including evangelical and even Reformed Christianity, have expressed something close to pacifism--though when pushed it becomes clear that they are not, strictly speaking, pacifists.

Why have so many (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants--liberal and evangelical) come in recent years to imbibe what sounds like pacifism? I do believe that there is confusion and a lack of understanding of historic Christian teaching on the matter. But I think that there's more to it than that. The last century has been one of rather significant war-mongering all around the board. Can many of the wars in history, in fact, pass the Augustinian/Aquinian "just-war theory," and I do not exclude from that, by any means, wars in which America has fought?

This is an exceedingly complex matter and one not easily solved and here's where I think things lie: pacifism has, for some, become the answer to so much war-mongering. Now I grant you that pacifism for many, especially liberal Protestants, has become quite fashionable and a political cause célèbre and an essential misunderstanding of the gospel, not to mention that many in American academe have come to espouse something close to pacifism, which, if rightly understood, is quite abhorent (never take military action for any reason means that the civil magistrate never cares about defense or justice for those being annihilated, and the like). So we can talk about all the wrong reasons that people may espouse pacifism or what appears to be such.

On the other hand, I think that it's important for us as Christians to recognize that a war-mongering state, whether or own or others, does not immediately merit our support in every war that it might attempt to prosecute. I realize that this is tricky stuff but I don't see how if I am not to engage in idolatrous worship because the state calls me to do so (which we all agree on, I trust, think of the Hebrew children in Daniel 3), I also think that we as Christians and the Christian Church as an entity reserve rights to make judgments as to the lawfulness of any war in which we are engaged, or in which we are asked to be engaged, as to its justness.

All this is to say that some may interpret a Christian refusing to take up arms (in, say, a military draft) as some sort of pacifism when, in fact, it may be a concern for just war. I agree with you, Perg, as with the historic Christian faith, that pacifism as such is not biblical. I also believe that, in addition to all the more recent misguided pacifism that we've seen, we have to recognize that some of this has perhaps been brought on by states themselves that have appeared as overly aggressive and war-mongering.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Mushroom]

Another aspect to consider is the use of deception and misrepresentation, if not the outright staging of incidents, to justify war on the part of the magistrate. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of such exists for most of the warfare executed over the past century, and only a willful blindness would deny that. What some conveniently brand pacifist and anabaptistic may simply be an unwillingness to unquestionably accept a call to participate in one of the most morally precarious endeavors - the killing of their fellow men - at the behest of men of such proven questionable character. "Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and die - for the state" is not a Christian ethic.

At what point does a magistrate lose the moral authority to prosecute war?

 

[Pergamum]

Well, pacifism is certainly an important part of the Anabaptist tradition (see Articles 4, 6 of the Schleitheim Confession of 1527). I would expect an Anabaptist to be a pacifist. Just as I would a Quaker. My approach to any of those types would not be to address their pacifism, but their essentially deficient understanding of the gospel.

If I am having such a discussion with someone who does not claim to be Anabaptist, Quaker, etc. and has a clear grasp on the gospel (this is always my first priority), I would point out that pacifism has not historically been part of Western or Eastern Christianity in any of its main branches. It is the case, however, that in more recent decades, many who profess Christianity, including evangelical and even Reformed Christianity, have expressed something close to pacifism--though when pushed it becomes clear that they are not, strictly speaking, pacifists.

Why have so many (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants--liberal and evangelical) come in recent years to imbibe what sounds like pacifism? I do believe that there is confusion and a lack of understanding of historic Christian teaching on the matter. But I think that there's more to it than that. The last century has been one of rather significant war-mongering all around the board. Can many of the wars in history, in fact, pass the Augustinian/Aquinian "just-war theory," and I do not exclude from that, by any means, wars in which America has fought?

This is an exceedingly complex matter and one not easily solved and here's where I think things lie: pacifism has, for some, become the answer to so much war-mongering. Now I grant you that pacifism for many, especially liberal Protestants, has become quite fashionable and a political cause célèbre and an essential misunderstanding of the gospel, not to mention that many in American academe have come to espouse something close to pacifism, which, if rightly understood, is quite abhorent (never take military action for any reason means that the civil magistrate never cares about defense or justice for those being annihilated, and the like). So we can talk about all the wrong reasons that people may espouse pacifism or what appears to be such.

On the other hand, I think that it's important for us as Christians to recognize that a war-mongering state, whether or own or others, does not immediately merit our support in every war that it might attempt to prosecute. I realize that this is tricky stuff but I don't see how if I am not to engage in idolatrous worship because the state calls me to do so (which we all agree on, I trust, think of the Hebrew children in Daniel 3), I also think that we as Christians and the Christian Church as an entity reserve rights to make judgments as to the lawfulness of any war in which we are engaged, or in which we are asked to be engaged, as to its justness.

All this is to say that some may interpret a Christian refusing to take up arms (in, say, a military draft) as some sort of pacifism when, in fact, it may be a concern for just war. I agree with you, Perg, as with the historic Christian faith, that pacifism as such is not biblical. I also believe that, in addition to all the more recent misguided pacifism that we've seen, we have to recognize that some of this has perhaps been brought on by states themselves that have appeared as overly aggressive and war-mongering.

Peace,
Alan

Thanks. Wonderful balanced answer. I hope they are merely defending Just War and rejecting war-mongering. They see jingoism and war-mongering in places where I see Just War, however.

 

[Pergamum]

Another aspect to consider is the use of deception and misrepresentation, if not the outright staging of incidents, to justify war on the part of the magistrate. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of such exists for most of the warfare executed over the past century, and only a willful blindness would deny that. What some conveniently brand pacifist and anabaptistic may simply be an unwillingness to unquestionably accept a call to participate in one of the most morally precarious endeavors - the killing of their fellow men - at the behest of men of such proven questionable character. "Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and die - for the state" is not a Christian ethic.

At what point does a magistrate lose the moral authority to prosecute war?

Brad:

You wrote:

At what point does a magistrate lose the moral authority to prosecute war?

Yes, I think that is a big part of it. They are suspicious of the government (perhaps rightly so).

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Thanks. Wonderful balanced answer. I hope they are merely defending Just War and rejecting war-mongering. They see jingoism and war-mongering in places where I see Just War, however

Then it seems likely that they are not really pacifists. Pacifists as a matter of principle reject Christian's having anything to do with the use of the sword, forbidding Christians to serve as soldiers or as civil magistrates. Obviously, your last sentence makes it clear that this is an internal argument with the details being important and likely to foster disagreement among those who agree on matters of the faith.

Peace,
Alan

 

[chuckd]

I have only interacted with one pacifist in my life. He was actually an anarchist as he thought the rise of the kings in Israel was against God's will from the start. His position on pacifism was due to:
-the impossibility to love our enemies (and turning the other cheek) while fighting against them. i.e. how could a Christian politician or Christian soldier wage war on an enemy while Christ called us to love them?
-no teaching by Jesus to wage war
-evidence among early Christians of refusing to participate in the Roman military after conversion
-"just war" and the like arising after Constantine's conversion

 

[Loopie]

One thing to consider: If, as Clausewitz points out, war is nothing more than a duel on a grand scale, then there certainly are times when war is acceptable and even required. If we break it down to its very core, war is simply the use of force to try to accomplish your will or to stop someone else from accomplishing their will. Two people, two families, two clans, or even two nations can engage in 'war'. So if we can find any example where one person can properly and biblically use force against another person, then theoretically we should be able to find an example of just 'war' between nations.

On the individual level, it would be justified for a man to use force to defend his wife and children from an intruder seeking to harm them (if no other option was available to the man). This does not mean that he finds 'pleasure' or 'enjoyment' in hurting the attacker. As for loving one's enemies, that needs to be understood within its proper context. It simply wouldn't make sense for a man to stand there and do nothing because he is torn between loving his wife and loving the man who is attacking his wife. That is a rather broken understanding of 'love' in that situation.

So on the larger, national level, there certainly could be wars that were 'just' or even 'obligatory'. Whether a particular war under consideration is just or not is another topic, but it should not be said that 'just' war is a mythical creature that can and never will be found. I think it is important to consider the fact that a person in warfare should be held accountable for the decisions that they made based on the knowledge that they had. The average soldier is not going to know as much as his commander-in-chief does. The commander-in-chief might be waging war for wicked reasons, unknown to the average soldier. Yet the average soldier might be acting for righteous reasons, and therefore not culpable. There seems to be a covenantal aspect to this that should not be ignored. If an intruder breaks into a family's home, begins struggling with the father of the house, and the father commands his twelve-year old son to get the gun and shoot the intruder, the son would not be wrong to obey. His father is in danger. His father, who is a lawful authority over the boy, has given a command to the boy. But the boy is not privy to the information that the father has. Perhaps the father had greatly sinned against the attacker earlier that day. Perhaps the father himself had just committed murder against the attacker's family, and the attacker is seeking revenge. The boy acts on the knowledge that he has. He isn't going to start interviewing both the father and the attacker while the attacker assaults the boy's father. He is going to act, in a reasonable manner, based on the information that he is given. I think we can apply this principle to the broader level of national warfare.

 

[Pergamum]

I have only interacted with one pacifist in my life. He was actually an anarchist as he thought the rise of the kings in Israel was against God's will from the start. His position on pacifism was due to:
-the impossibility to love our enemies (and turning the other cheek) while fighting against them. i.e. how could a Christian politician or Christian soldier wage war on an enemy while Christ called us to love them?
-no teaching by Jesus to wage war
-evidence among early Christians of refusing to participate in the Roman military after conversion
-"just war" and the like arising after Constantine's conversion

Sounds like the same guy as I know!

 

[Mushroom]

The boy acts on the knowledge that he has. He isn't going to start interviewing both the father and the attacker while the attacker assaults the boy's father. He is going to act, in a reasonable manner, based on the information that he is given. I think we can apply this principle to the broader level of national warfare.

Certainly, but what if the boy has willfully ignored the cries of those his father has wronged, or the testimony of witnesses? And of course, the analogy fails on the aspect of child vs. adult. Grown Christian men capable of discerning truth can't hide themselves behind that bush.

"I was only following orders" has been long rejected as a defense of those who fought for the perpetrators of the holocausts of the 20th century.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

As the dialogue between Erik and Brad demonstrates, good men can differ on what constitutes "just war" and argue on that basis. One man may construe such rather broadly and another rather narrowly, both within the same or allied confessional traditions.

Certainly Erik is no pacifist, but neither is Brad, in any proper sense of the term, even if the latter thinks that most wars waged now (or in the past, for that matter) did not meet the "just war" criteria. Let's not confuse the matter by introducing the term "pacifist" here, used as an abusive epithet for something that no Reformed person has historically believed.

If someone is truly a pacifist and claims to be a Christian, we can argue with them biblically as to the unbiblical nature of pacifism. If they are not a Christian, we have bigger fish to fry than pacifism. If their contention is that much war is unjust, that's simply not pacifism, and every particular engagement is up for discussion and analysis, which is quite a bit more complicated than many would imagine and a tall order, particularly when considering military engagements long past (something can start as just and become unjust and vice-versa). But it's not a part of ethics that we may omit, though many Reformed people seem to reduce ethics to the purely personal and refuse to think in terms of ethics at the corporate level. And that last comment could lead to another discussion altogether.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well, pacifism is certainly an important part of the Anabaptist tradition (see Articles 4, 6 of the Schleitheim Confession of 1527). I would expect an Anabaptist to be a pacifist. Just as I would a Quaker. My approach to any of those types would not be to address their pacifism, but their essentially deficient understanding of the gospel.

If I am having such a discussion with someone who does not claim to be Anabaptist, Quaker, etc. and has a clear grasp on the gospel (this is always my first priority), I would point out that pacifism has not historically been part of Western or Eastern Christianity in any of its main branches. It is the case, however, that in more recent decades, many who profess Christianity, including evangelical and even Reformed Christianity, have expressed something close to pacifism--though when pushed it becomes clear that they are not, strictly speaking, pacifists.

Why have so many (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants--liberal and evangelical) come in recent years to imbibe what sounds like pacifism? I do believe that there is confusion and a lack of understanding of historic Christian teaching on the matter. But I think that there's more to it than that. The last century has been one of rather significant war-mongering all around the board. Can many of the wars in history, in fact, pass the Augustinian/Aquinian "just-war theory," and I do not exclude from that, by any means, wars in which America has fought?

This is an exceedingly complex matter and one not easily solved and here's where I think things lie: pacifism has, for some, become the answer to so much war-mongering. Now I grant you that pacifism for many, especially liberal Protestants, has become quite fashionable and a political cause célèbre and an essential misunderstanding of the gospel, not to mention that many in American academe have come to espouse something close to pacifism, which, if rightly understood, is quite abhorent (never take military action for any reason means that the civil magistrate never cares about defense or justice for those being annihilated, and the like). So we can talk about all the wrong reasons that people may espouse pacifism or what appears to be such.

On the other hand, I think that it's important for us as Christians to recognize that a war-mongering state, whether or own or others, does not immediately merit our support in every war that it might attempt to prosecute. I realize that this is tricky stuff but I don't see how if I am not to engage in idolatrous worship because the state calls me to do so (which we all agree on, I trust, think of the Hebrew children in Daniel 3), I also think that we as Christians and the Christian Church as an entity reserve rights to make judgments as to the lawfulness of any war in which we are engaged, or in which we are asked to be engaged, as to its justness.

All this is to say that some may interpret a Christian refusing to take up arms (in, say, a military draft) as some sort of pacifism when, in fact, it may be a concern for just war. I agree with you, Perg, as with the historic Christian faith, that pacifism as such is not biblical. I also believe that, in addition to all the more recent misguided pacifism that we've seen, we have to recognize that some of this has perhaps been brought on by states themselves that have appeared as overly aggressive and war-mongering.

Peace,
Alan

Great analysis as usual. I do think that some of the recent pacificism (of the liberal sort) suffers from two problems.

The first is the problem is that it's not very well developed. Leaving aside whether good reasons existed, the populace that was otherwise eager to completely disengage in the Middle East suddenly shifted trails to support military action against ISIS. Again, I'm not arguing for or against whether a person could argue against why we got into the recent conflicts to begine with. What I'm pointing out is that many of the voices on the left that wanted us out of there did not seem to have factored in to their conceptual framework the likes of ISIS.

The second thing that I see in the embrace of pacificism by many liberal theologians and other mainstream types is the same reasoning they use to claim that the death penalty is unjust. I think, in general, there has been a loss of the sense of the image of God in man. Ironically, the same reason that abortion is celebrated is the same reason man can, by fiat, claim that the death penalty is unjust. Both depend on the loss of the image of God and what God says about any who would harm or threaten life. A certain kind of sentimentalism exists because men hate war (naturally) but because liberal theology has lost the image of God in man it has no sense about how seriously God takes such issues and expects fathers or magistrates to do the same.

 

[Loopie]

Certainly, but what if the boy has willfully ignored the cries of those his father has wronged, or the testimony of witnesses? And of course, the analogy fails on the aspect of child vs. adult. Grown Christian men capable of discerning truth can't hide themselves behind that bush.

"I was only following orders" has been long rejected as a defense of those who fought for the perpetrators of the holocausts of the 20th century.

I completely agree. Again, a person is held accountable for the actions they take based on the information they have. A boy who is willfully submitting to the wicked actions of his father, when he knows they are wicked, should be held accountable. He should obey God rather than men.

I do not think that the analogy fails on the aspect of child vs. adult, since a 16 year old 'child' can still engage in moral activity. That aside, the analogy is pointing out the nature of authority/representation. This actually touches on every aspect of our lives, including business. Nearly every large corporation or business in the United States has engaged in some sort of morally questionable behavior in the history of their existence, whether by accident or by design. But just because your boss, or the company you work for, has done wicked actions in the past does not mean they are always doing that, or that every project they give you to do is wicked. Discernment comes into play, but it is not always a simple process. Should a person going to a job interview demand that the company hiring them tell them all of their dirty little secrets before they accept the job? Should we expect any different from our government? Believe me, the Nuremberg Defense is very much something that should be avoided (the idea of claiming ignorance when there wasn't really any ignorance). But if ignorance is legitimate, than that needs to be taken into consideration. Again, it is not a 'willful' ignorance or a 'burying-your-head-in-the-sand' ignorance, but a true, honest ignorance.

 

[Pergamum]

BAM!!!....it happened again.

A dear brother sent me this article: ISIS Makes New Law: If Any Christian Gets Caught Reading The Bible, He Will Be Executed (ITS TIME FOR CHRISTIANS TO START FIGHTING BACK) - Walid Shoebat

And then advised: "Wow, DON'T spread this story or support this cause, at the end of the article they ask you to support a Christian militia in Syria to "kill off ISIS terrorists." That is not the Gospel or the Biblical response of the Christian church but rather an attempt to start a new "crusades" of religious warfare that will only end in death and the destruction and confusion of any Christian witness in this region."

I believe that if a large group of Christians are being attacked, they have the right to defend themselves (and others have the right to go to their defense) just as if a household of Christians were being attacked. This is not to deny the Great Commission.

Surely if it is just to fight terrorism for the purpose of protecting one's borders or protecting displaced peoples, it is okay to fight a war to protect displaced Christian peoples.

Finally, I believe that if large groups of Muslims attacked Europe, then towns and even churches could and should urge their members to take up arms and fight. There should be no indulgences offered for this action from the Pope, but as a civil conflict, it is a just war.

p..s There may, indeed, be significant problems with the linked article (such as the mixing of Biblical examples of just war with historical examples, which may not actually be cases of just war...and also the citing of Catholic sources who often urged the killing of Christian "heretics" as well, and the merger of the civil sword and the Church). But urging the killing of ISIS terrorists who invade one's own towns does not seem an un-Christian attitude to me. Even if a just war were undeclared by appropriate magistrates (whoever those may be in this instance), the principle of self-defense justifies war against ISIS even by private individuals (not conscripted into the army) who find their farms and homes invaded and their families threatened. Even if Christians were moved with compassion to fly over and fight on the behalf of the oppressed, this is no "Christian jihad" but may be justifiable as an act of defense and mercy.

 

[Mushroom]

The evident reluctance of some magistrates to engage in this current travesty with any commitment or timeliness ought to raise some heads from the glow of their monitors and move them to carefully restudy the claims of justification for past 'adventures', and perhaps approach future assertions of such with less unstudied gullibility. When a magistrate claims his aggression is intended to 'liberate', it may behoove Christians to determine just what the magistrate is intending to liberate before agreeing to kill on his behalf. It may also be wise to approach that determination with a realistic view of the trustworthiness of said magistrate. Considering the present state of past beneficiaries of alleged 'liberation' might prove helpful.

If we would have thought a German a fool to trust the Nazi regime, or a Russian a fool to trust the Kremlin, where on that scale would one fall who trusted a regime with the blood of 57 million babies on its hands? I am astonished that professing Christians can be so anesthetized as to not see that. And that's only one among many evidences (but certainly the strongest) of magisterial illegitimacy.

I also find some irony in the fact that so many are willing to fight for a questionable magistrate's questionable causes from the safety of that magistrate's technological superiority, all the while asserting a scriptural warrant for doing so, and yet they seem hard to find doing the thing Pergs suggests and privately volunteering to defend persecuted Christians. If a man's calling really is that of soldier defending just causes (what other kind of soldier could a Christian properly be?), what would be more just than that? Courage and faithfulness are easy to claim from behind castle walls while enjoying a king's largess. Ignoring the depravity of the king of that castle might make those claims easier to assert, but it sure doesn't lend credence to them from an objective perspective.

But that's just the view from the peanut gallery, a view likely impermissible here.

 

[Pergamum]

Brad,

So, you could support a Christian leader recruiting an army of volunteers to enter the Middle East and take up arms against ISIS? Suppose a Christian millionaire could help run logistics and ex-military could provide the training. Even fielding several thousand armed men could defend refugees. We have seen private armies for hire (Blackwater) in Iraq. Would pastors have objections if this were done for altruism (guarding Christian refugees) rather than pay?

 

[Mushroom]

Absolutely, and willing to volunteer as well. But I'm not supposed to be discussing these sorts of matters here, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Pergamum]

Okay, my army is now enlarged to two! When do we leave?