Should Christians be Pacifist?

[Shimei]

Hello,

I have a question given our unique Government in the United States. Seemingly to me, the 2nd amendment extends the power and authority to bear arms to the people. It is no coincidence to me that the second amendment follows the first, as it may be necessary from time to time defend ourselves against foreign or domestic tyranny. I can also understand why the armed citizen is a deterrent from foreign threats as each armed household must be dealt with on a person to person basis or from house to house. Not to mention the people being well armed may defend themselves against the domestic threats should we be forced to defend our faith or freedom of speech.

This brings me to my question. As I understand it the early Church suffered from pacifism for a few hundred years while being oppressed, enslaved, raped, and or murdered. The pacifism finally broke after hundreds of years which led the Church onto her first Crusades. Today, are we or ought we defend ourselves, our brethren and families? Or should we follow in the footsteps of other Christians such as the Assyrians which are being slaughtered by ISIS?

I think it rather interesting that nobody questions whether the nation of Israel has a right to defend itself. But when it comes to the Church (Spiritual Israel) do we have a right to defend ourselves? Does Just War Theory apply to Israel's citizens?

What sparked the question was my prior military service. I took an oath to defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats. And I, like any other solider, never disavowed the oath after discharge. This, as well as, the unique Government where the people's are an extension of authority which grants the right to wield the sword if it should be deemed necessary.

To note, nothing going in my life. But I am running across many a Christians who preach pacifism. They believe no matter what we should "leave it up to God" because God is sovereign. These arguments appear to be almost fatalistic in my opinion.

Your thoughts?
William

 

[Dachaser]

Hello,

I have a question given our unique Government in the United States. Seemingly to me, the 2nd amendment extends the power and authority to bear arms to the people. It is no coincidence to me that the second amendment follows the first, as it may be necessary from time to time defend ourselves against foreign or domestic tyranny. I can also understand why the armed citizen is a deterrent from foreign threats as each armed household must be dealt with on a person to person basis or from house to house. Not to mention the people being well armed may defend themselves against the domestic threats should we be forced to defend our faith or freedom of speech.

This brings me to my question. As I understand it the early Church suffered from pacifism for a few hundred years while being oppressed, enslaved, raped, and or murdered. The pacifism finally broke after hundreds of years which led the Church onto her first Crusades. Today, are we or ought we defend ourselves, our brethren and families? Or should we follow in the footsteps of other Christians such as the Assyrians which are being slaughtered by ISIS?

I think it rather interesting that nobody questions whether the nation of Israel has a right to defend itself. But when it comes to the Church (Spiritual Israel) do we have a right to defend ourselves? Does Just War Theory apply to Israel's citizens?

What sparked the question was my prior military service. I took an oath to defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats. And I, like any other solider, never disavowed the oath after discharge. This, as well as, the unique Government where the people's are an extension of authority which grants the right to wield the sword if it should be deemed necessary.

To note, nothing going in my life. But I am running across many a Christians who preach pacifism. They believe no matter what we should "leave it up to God" because God is sovereign. These arguments appear to be almost fatalistic in my opinion.

Your thoughts?
William

All depends on how one reads and understands the bible, as some will be driven to no violence ever allowed, even to defend ourselves, to holding to there being a Just war allowed.

 

[Shimei]

All depends on how one reads and understands the bible, as some will be driven to no violence ever allowed, even to defend ourselves, to holding to there being a Just war allowed.

I personally could leave it up to God should I need to defend myself. But my daughters, loved ones, and brethren, that is a matter of conscience. I don't think I'd be able to live with myself should others be jeopardized for my faith. And I am not so confident in my theology regarding non-violence that I'd put others to risk.

I see a lot of Christian militias forming overseas. And I was just curious about whether Just War Theory applies not only to them but to us here in America? Us being Christians.

Thanks for your input.

God bless,
William

 

[Gforce9]

William,
Lots of underlying stuff in there. 6th Commandment obligations to protect the innocent, the difference of an average Christian citizen vs the agent of the State (soldier) who is the long arm of the law (and sword). I think pure pacifism is wrong; it fails to execute the requirements of God's Law when it should. It fails to love it's neighbor.
I think where we (me in particular) are going to have a hard time, over and against most nations that don't know freedom like we do, is when those freedoms are removed from us by a tyrannical government. It most certainly is coming to the U.S......in fact, it is here and gaining traction.

 

[Held Fast]

GForce9 did a great synopsis in his first paragraph!

This is a subject of particular interest to me; the Navy sent me to Princeton Seminary on a paid sabbatical to acquire a ThM in Moral Philosophy in order to serve as faculty on the Navy Postgraduate School, and I am still on an advisory council with the Chief of Chaplains to the CNO on matters of ethics as it relates to warfare. Our Christian heritage is rich with this dialogue, and the fact that it remains in tension is I believe a healthy sign. We hold ourselves in the middle, far away from either Total War (term of art) and Pacifism. I personally see pacifism in the US aging out, as activism and violence are becoming synonymous to a younger generation - the concern is that activism has no regard for the other, and so justice in war is tossed out, and Total War is accepted. "Whatever it takes ..." is an immoral and unbiblical standard. I heard the new generation of SJW leaders studying at PTSEM use Total War language flippantly when discussing social action, race reconciliation, etc. There is neither space nor time to do it justice here, but I would argue that we ought to point Christians to the middle ground: there are times when violence is warranted, but even then it is within the bounds of loving one's neighbor. Sometimes the most loving thing we can do for a neighbor is confront them with violence to cease their wickedness against another.

 

[Joshua]

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I do not think pacifism is Biblically defensible at all. Romans 13:1-5, for starters. It is also not confessional. For that matter the pacifist has some serious issues with not doing something to protect his family from someone having breaking the sixth commandment in mind.

Vos has an interesting argument for legitimate self-defense as a moral obligation that stems from the fact that our life is not our own, but God's, thus if we are good stewards of God's possessions, our obligation to preserve our own lives from criminal violence is inescapable.

 

[ZackF]

We are called to be peacemakers and not pacifists.

First of all, your contention that the church suffered from pacifism is incorrect. The church suffered from persecution. While there have always been pacifists in the church, including early churchmen, persecution was foretold by Christ. The world can and does crush bodies but it cannot separate Christ from His people. The body count for the Apostles was 12 of 13 if you count Judas. Things were rough for centuries early on. They're rough in many parts of the world these days for Christians. The problem in the early church wasn't pacifism but a silly, misguided martyr complex. There were people running around the Roman Empire trying to get martyred. That was foolish. Romans 12:18.

Secondly, Just War Theory has been horribly abused leading to all kinds of wicked, disproportionate responses. A wax nose if there ever was one. It nearly has the track record of Just Sexual Theory. To illustrate my point we'll compare war (or violence or force) and sex. Society is awash in illicit violence and threats of violence from dark alley fisticuffs to WMDs. The world is also filled with fornication, p0rnography, sodomy, adultery, rape and prostitution. This doesn't negate the validity of God's law. Like sexual fidelity and chastity; JWT(at all levels) requires virtue and restraint for proper implementation. A man has to cultivate a desire for his wife, seek her good, seek to honor God, forsake the sexual pleasure of other women. Similarly, a peacemaker must train himself in deescalation, be willing to forsake and put to death desires brought by vanity, worldly honor, ill gotten gain, petty slights, and envy. Does he love the challenging people in his life such as the malcontent, fellow believer in the pews or a wicked neighbor across the street? Does he pray for them or desire their destruction and relish in their suffering. Is vengeance the Lord's or isn't it. Are you the lawful one to seek justice that may require the use of force in a given situation or aren't you? Such restraint isn't easy. It's not for wimps.

Use of force, particularly deadly force is like a divorce. Divorce should be a last resort for a major infraction (infidelity) and not because your tired of someone because she isn't as pretty as someone else flirting with you. Have you exhausted peaceful options as opposed to war or have you not?

 

[RamistThomist]

No.

The early church was mostly pacifistic for a number of reasons:
1) To take up arms against Rome would have been suicide, seeing how Rome wiped out the Jews twice.
2) Just war means we must also have a reasonable chance of winning, which they didn't have.
3) Many questioned joining the military because of the pagan oaths involved.

But if those situations don't obtain today, and they don't, then we can't go to what the early church did as a norm.

 

[Dachaser]

We are called to be peacemakers and not pacifists.

First of all, your contention that the church suffered from pacifism is incorrect. The church suffered from persecution. While there have always been pacifists in the church, including early churchmen, persecution was foretold by Christ. The world can and does crush bodies but it cannot separate Christ from His people. The body count for the Apostles was 12 of 13 if you count Judas. Things were rough for centuries early on. They're rough in many parts of the world these days for Christians. The problem in the early church wasn't pacifism but a silly, misguided martyr complex. There were people running around the Roman Empire trying to get martyred. That was foolish. Romans 12:18.

Secondly, Just War Theory has been horribly abused leading to all kinds of wicked, disproportionate responses. A wax nose if there ever was one. It nearly has the track record of Just Sexual Theory. To illustrate my point we'll compare war (or violence or force) and sex. Society is awash in illicit violence and threats of violence from dark alley fisticuffs to WMDs. The world is also filled with fornication, p0rnography, sodomy, adultery, rape and prostitution. This doesn't negate the validity of God's law. Like sexual fidelity and chastity; JWT(at all levels) requires virtue and restraint for proper implementation. A man has to cultivate a desire for his wife, seek her good, seek to honor God, forsake the sexual pleasure of other women. Similarly, a peacemaker must train himself in deescalation, be willing to forsake and put to death desires brought by vanity, worldly honor, ill gotten gain, petty slights, and envy. Does he love the challenging people in his life such as the malcontent, fellow believer in the pews or a wicked neighbor across the street? Does he pray for them or desire their destruction and relish in their suffering. Is vengeance the Lord's or isn't it. Are you the lawful one to seek justice that may require the use of force in a given situation or aren't you? Such restraint isn't easy. It's not for wimps.

Use of force, particularly deadly force is like a divorce. Divorce should be a last resort for a major infraction (infidelity) and not because your tired of someone because she isn't as pretty as someone else flirting with you. Have you exhausted peaceful options as opposed to war or have you not?

There has to be some response to evil that is committed on a monstrous scale and degree, such as under the Nazi regime of the Fuehrer, as we would be under the moral obligation to defend and protect ourselves and others from such a state as Germany had become in those years. The same rationale should also be extended towards current nations like North Korea, and groups like Isis today.

 

[Dachaser]

No.

The early church was mostly pacifistic for a number of reasons:
1) To take up arms against Rome would have been suicide, seeing how Rome wiped out the Jews twice.
2) Just war means we must also have a reasonable chance of winning, which they didn't have.
3) Many questioned joining the military because of the pagan oaths involved.

But if those situations don't obtain today, and they don't, then we can't go to what the early church did as a norm.

Yes, just as we should not take how they had all properties common to one another as the example of hos to live today, as they were practicing sharing and meeting others needs when the church was very spiritual, before carnality had started to enter into their assemblies.

 

[Dachaser]

I do not think pacifism is Biblically defensible at all. Romans 13:1-5, for starters. It is also not confessional. For that matter the pacifist has some serious issues with not doing something to protect his family from someone having breaking the sixth commandment in mind.

Vos has an interesting argument for legitimate self-defense as a moral obligation that stems from the fact that our life is not our own, but God's, thus if we are good stewards of God's possessions, our obligation to preserve our own lives from criminal violence is inescapable.

And to extend it out further, we would be under moral obligations to protect and defend others threatened by rank evil such as Nazi Germany under Hitler.

 

[Gforce9]

The distinctive roles of Church and State must be maintained or things get outta control fast......... The Church doesn't have the power of the sword and the State doesnt preach the word or administer sacraments.....

 

[Dachaser]

The distinctive roles of Church and State must be maintained or things get outta control fast......... The Church doesn't have the power of the sword and the State doesnt preach the word or administer sacraments.....

I think it would render unto Caesar the things of His, and unto God His things, as one can be both a citizen of USA and also of Heaven.

 

[Gforce9]

I think it would render unto Caesar the things of His, and unto God His things, as one can be both a citizen of USA and also of Heaven.

That's not what's in question. What is in question is whom may do what?

 

[Dachaser]

That's not what's in question. What is in question is who may do what?

Jesus Himself commanded his own to purchase a sword for self defense, so would assume still follows for us today.

 

[Gforce9]

So Westmister Presbyterian Church could, in theory, rise up against North Korea?

 

[Edward]

there are times when violence is warranted, but even then it is within the bounds of loving one's neighbor.

Limited warfare has proven itself a failure over the last 60 years. One should never get involved in a war one doesn't plan on winning. And one doesn't win by pulling punches.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jesus Himself commanded his own to purchase a sword for self defense, so would assume still follows for us today.

But in doing so we are acting as citizens of the secular kingdom, not as the church.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, just as we should not take how they had all properties common to one another as the example of hos to live today, as they were practicing sharing and meeting others needs when the church was very spiritual, before carnality had started to enter into their assemblies.

I'm not clear on what you are getting at. In your first sentence you (rightly) say we should not follow them in their supposed communism. But at the end you state they were very spiritual and carnality had not set in (which I would dispute). But if they were very spiritual, then shouldn't we follow them?

 

[Brian Withnell]

No ... and in fact Christ insisted that there were swords. "Here are two" and that was enough ... so not everyone needs to be armed with deadly force, but he knew they would be in a world that requires force to meet violence. So the simple answer is a resounding no. Jesus committed no sin, and insisted his disciples have means of deadly self defense. Those that preach pacifism preach a twisted gospel, not the gospel of Christ.

That does not mean that we all have a chip on our shoulder, or are looking for a fight. But we need to be read to defend the innocent.

 

[Brian Withnell]

But in doing so we are acting as citizens of the secular kingdom, not as the church.

I really believe that is just plain wrong. Jesus told his disciples to do something, and when we act as he commanded, we are acting not as the secular kingdom, but we are acting as citizens of his kingdom (the Church). If we don't do as he says (i.e., we don't have at least some with "swords") then we are acting as the secular kingdom and not following what God commands, but what the world thinks. The world thinks that force is wrong ... God does not, and has commanded his people in *many* times to use force. What God commands his people *cannot* be wrong for them to do.

 

[Dachaser]

I'm not clear on what you are getting at. In your first sentence you (rightly) say we should not follow them in their supposed communism. But at the end you state they were very spiritual and carnality had not set in (which I would dispute). But if they were very spiritual, then shouldn't we follow them?

My point was the the spiritual condition at the very founding of the Church was pure, and so they were fully committed to Jesus and the work of the kingdom, but then Satan got into the mix pretty quickly, as evidenced with that couple that God judged and killed off for following Satan and not the Holy Spirit in their midst.

 

[Dachaser]

I really believe that is just plain wrong. Jesus told his disciples to do something, and when we act as he commanded, we are acting not as the secular kingdom, but we are acting as citizens of his kingdom (the Church). If we don't do as he says (i.e., we don't have at least some with "swords") then we are acting as the secular kingdom and not following what God commands, but what the world thinks. The world thinks that force is wrong ... God does not, and has commanded his people in *many* times to use force. What God commands his people *cannot* be wrong for them to do.

The very same God was in the OT commanding his nation to fight a Just war at that time.

 

[Dachaser]

Limited warfare has proven itself a failure over the last 60 years. One should never get involved in a war one doesn't plan on winning. And one doesn't win by pulling punches.

The Just war concept includes the notion that if the war is to be waged, it is to be done all out, with the notion being it is able to be, and will be won.

 

[RamistThomist]

My point was the the spiritual condition at the very founding of the Church was pure, and so they were fully committed to Jesus and the work of the kingdom, but then Satan got into the mix pretty quickly, as evidenced with that couple that God judged and killed off for following Satan and not the Holy Spirit in their midst.

So, if they were pure, and they shared all things, and presumably we, too, should be pure, should we not also share all things?

 

[RamistThomist]

The Just war concept includes the notion that if the war is to be waged, it is to be done all out, with the notion being it is able to be, and will be won.

No it's not. Just war means you can't target non-combatants and you should minimize casualties.

 

[RamistThomist]

I really believe that is just plain wrong. Jesus told his disciples to do something, and when we act as he commanded, we are acting not as the secular kingdom, but we are acting as citizens of his kingdom (the Church). If we don't do as he says (i.e., we don't have at least some with "swords") then we are acting as the secular kingdom and not following what God commands, but what the world thinks. The world thinks that force is wrong ... God does not, and has commanded his people in *many* times to use force. What God commands his people *cannot* be wrong for them to do.

Secular simply means the "time between the times," the two advents. I am not a church officer, and as such when I act in my day to day life, I am precisely *not* acting as a minister of Christ's mediatorial kingdom.

The Reformed… tend to attribute the regnum universale [universal Kingdom] specifically to the Second Person of the Trinity and only the regnum oeconomicum [economic reign, including the Mediatorial Kingdom] to the God-man as Mediator.’

– Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, pp. 259-260.

The kingdom ‘the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ’ as ‘the visible Church’ (WCF 25.2). So when I cut someone in half with a shotgun, I am not doing it as a member of the mediatorial kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[RamistThomist]

Rev David Fields did a "cheat sheet" summary of Rutherford's Lex, Rex, which outlines godly armed resistance.
http://www.davidpfield.com/published-articles/Rutherford-resistance.pdf

 

[Held Fast]

Limited warfare has proven itself a failure over the last 60 years. One should never get involved in a war one doesn't plan on winning. And one doesn't win by pulling punches.

That would not be a Scriptural or Theological argument, but a pragmatic one which is merely a worldly argument as Christians and non-Christians alike could agree. However, for a Christian to engage in warfare requires that they do so in a manner consistent with a scriptural or theological argument, which makes this more complex than "winning." What does winning look like? In limited warfare, it looks like negating your opponents means and will to fight. Two atomic weapons, as horrific as they were, represented a limited means to negating Japans means and will to fight, in comparison to total annihilation which was in our means to deliver.

A good read to inform the larger discussion is Calvin on the lesser magistrates; he invokes much of the scripture and theology that ought to inform a Christian considering violence.