1

Hi Joe

I've also had this argument, and it's kind of ironic that in online debates, my faith was called into question (usually by Muslims or secular liberals) because of my support for the war. "Aren't you Christians supposed to turn the other cheek?'
I cite Romans 5 because it's even stronger ("Do not resist an evil man...") than Luke 6:29. In context it is referring to personal offense, not national policy. That is usually the end of that argument. In talking about the authority of the state you are absolutely spot on and Romans 13 backs you up. I think this aspect of Christianity scares left-wingers and jihadis more than anything. Kind of like the Marines, your worst enemy or your best friend.
I think the reason God required the complete obliteration of nations like the Amalekites and the Jebusites is that they were the kind of tribal societies that never forgot a grudge and never would be pacified, as well as having a religion that was in total opposition to God. Only God knows if the Palestinians will give up their mad scheme to push the Israelis into the sea, but for now all that seems to work is force.
I just started reading your blog, and for me it's doesn't get much better than a Christian Marine warblog!
God bless and Semper Fi!

papijoe

2

Your post reminds me of the current Bible Study I'm leading on Revelation.

Jesus is certainly not a pacifist according to Revelation 19:11-21 AV

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

"His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

"And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which [sword] proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”

3

Oy veh, Joe! Such ponderings at such a late hour! But serious ponderings, my brother and I for one am glad you expressed them. I share your concern. For years, I have felt irritated by the attitude of some Christians who felt the "Christian duty" was to espouse pacifism.

I am reminded of the verse, "The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force." I'm not saying this verse directly relates to what is being said but rather, it reflects Jesus' thoughts that there was going to be a whole lotta shakin' going on when it came to the collision of holiness and sinfulness. The very essence of God is holiness - separate and apart. In order for a joining together to happen, something had to happen and it wasn't going to be a nice, peaceful chat over a cup of coffee.

Satan had to be conquered. Evil had to be overcome. There was no appeasement to be had when it came to Satan's manipulative tactics. Trickery, deceit - if God could not change his mind, who could? Disobedience, an abandonment of respect and honor and outright hatred and murder isn't something to be tolerated.

I believe we were created in God's image, which means we have the capacity to love and honor one another. That is basic. No matter how much we might disagree with someone, everyone knows it is an extreme act to kill that person. However, Paul instructed the churches to speak the truth in love with a wayward believer first and if they still didn't repent, to pretty much not waste their time anymore and expel them from fellowship.

This type of teaching is hard for many to hear. Love is what we are to show one another but yet love is not to be mocked. Allowing evil to exist while justifying it is like someone ignoring a small spot of cancer.

Then again, I'm all about Jael.

4

Good points Joe, Papijoe, and Hal. I've been attempting to get people to realize this as well. Our self-centered worldview seems to tell us simply that God is "love" and is mainly interested in a "relationship" with us - as if it ends there. We end up with a distorted view of the character of God. Is it no wonder that we also approach Him in cavalier ways?

5

War in the defense of the innocent IS Christian charity (which is why Aquinas puts his discussion in the Summa on just war in the section on Christian Charity. Indeed, we have replaced the scriptural understanding of God's love with our own enlightenment version of love - a feeling of sorts, that comes and goes.

Love is something God does. In some cases, that means doing things that today's world considers unloving. I think this misunderstanding is the root of many of the problems within the Church today - and not just on the issue of war and peace.

6

I really appreciated this post also.

Pacifism is an "idol of humanistic ideology"--well put!

7

Isn't pacifism a belief in peace at all cost?

God is a God of justice. His way of settling the issue of sin was a violent one, but necessary. For Iraq, the price of peace IMO, was much higher than the price of justice.

8

Being for peace and being a pacifist are two separate things. A pacifist is someone who doesn't believe that there is anything worth hurting or killing someone to defend. Pacifism is not honorable, it is pure cowardice.

9

I, too, am a new reader and appreciate your post. It's easier to create God in our own image rather than discover in His word what His character is.

10

Speaking of C.S. Lewis, he also addressed war with much insight in The Screwtape Letters. He observed that in a spiritual sense, there is no real advantage in peace when compared to war. In fact, while a people at peace are likely to grow complacent and self-indulgent (if only I could think of an example...), those experiencing war are forced to confront the real problem of death and eternity. How many more seek the Lord's face when facing death themselves?

11

I concur with the views about God as a righteous judge. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of the OT can't conclude that God is a pacifist. You could say He is, in a way, a "pacifist", through offering His Son Jesus Christ in reconciliation with believers.

12

To put it bluntly, God isn't a Pacifist but Satan is. He's also probably incredibly charismatic and smooth, but that's for another post.

"He knows just where to touch you baby and how you like to be kissed, Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace."-Bob Dylan, "Man of Peace" Off the Infidels album.

-Jim.

13

Satan as a pacifist - hmmm....interesting concept, but it sort of contradicts the verse about the devil being out to kill, steal, and destroy, don't you think? Clearly, I have a very different definition of pacifism than the other commenters - possibly you are basing your opinions on pacifism on the behavior of weird people at anti-war protests, in which case I can see how you arrived at your conclusions. True pacifism is not a belief in peace at any cost. There is a big difference between true peace and the absence of war. Instead, true pacifism is a commitment to actively make peace by working for justice in the context of non-violent resistance, often at great personal cost. As a pacifist, I attempt to incorporate peace making into every part of my life, even while living and working in communities where violence is unfortunately commonplace. I'm not always very good at that, but I'm slowly getting better. I think that if you engaged with the theology of some of the traditional peace churches, such as the Mennonites or the Quakers, you might find true pacifism more nuanced, challenging, and thought provoking than you think.

Peace,
Christy

14

Evidence for God's "warlike" characteristics can be found pretty much exclusively through his commands to the Israelites in the OT. I think it's quite a mistake to universalize the things God was having Israel do (including numerous acts that would be regarded today as horrific war crimes). Irsaelites were the "choosen people" of God and therefore had a special role to play in God's redemptive plan. One might even interpret some of the particularly disturbing things Israel did through the lens of Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical.

But to argue that modern nation-states, particularly democratic nation states, ought to go to war whenever an opportunity presents itself to "punish the wicked" is folly. We have states not in order to impose divine punishment of the wicked but primarily for our own protection, so we can can build a florishing and (hopefully) virtuous society. If we viewed ourselves as obligated to punish the wicked and protect the good all over the world, we would be in a constant state of war, and our society would suffer for it.

However, we as Christians who are citizens in a democracy DO have an obligation to try and influence the state to work for justice. I'll allow that maybe this means trying to get the state to go to war in some cases. It was a travesty, for example, that the western world failed to intervene militarily in Rwanda during the genocide there, and that it waited so long to get serious about Bosnia. We as Christians failed to the extent that we didn't advocate for this more strongly. But war is indeed awful, often creates more injustice than it prevents, and should be viewed as a last and dreadful resort.

(also, if the obligation of nation-states is truly to punish the wicked and protect the good, every nation on earth is doing such a laughably bad job at it that we can all expect divine wrath on our countries. The U.S. is probably one of the worst offenders, if you look at who we've counted as allies in the past.)

15

Hey guys: Here's some food for thought from an alternative perspective. I am one of those Christians you seem to disdain. Because Jesus is Lord, I am willing to die for justice and truth, but not kill for it. Following Christ for me means I will not use the weapons of the world. I belong to one of the historic "peace churches," the Mennonites. My dad, for example, was a conscientious objector to the war in Vietnam (Mennonites are C.O.'s to all wars. That just happened to be the war of his generation.) As a form of altenative service, he and my Mom served as missionaries and service workers in Vietnam for 10 years (1963-73), while raising four kids. As a result, I have the unusual circumstance of having been born in a city and country that no longer (technically) exits, Saigon, South Vietnam! It makes me a little sad that you would question the Christian commitment and integrity of my father and many other nonviolent Christians, as somehow being unfaithful to God. As I shall hope to show, I think it is a bit of stretch of the biblical witness, in any case.

My main concern about your viewpoint is that I don't think it adequately integrates the fulness of the Biblical message. I would challenge you to dig a little deeper. As Paul says, putting on the whole armor of God is the calling of a Christian. What is that armor? Truth, salvation, peace, righteousness, the word of God, etc. You can find it in Ephesians 4, I think. The symbol in Revelation of a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus refers, again, to the word of God, not human-made steel or missiles. The way in which Christ "conquered" evil in the book of Revelation, was as the Lamb who was slain. The message to the persecuted churches in Revelation is "hold on, perservere, keep the faith, Christ has trod this path of suffering, and he will be with you to the end, even beyond death, so don't fear, but hold fast to the faith." I guess if this way of nonviolence was good enough for Christ, it is good enough for me! I would challenge any of you to read through the Gospels and make a case for Jesus being anything other than what you seem to attack--nonviolent by nature and in principle. (In any case, a little Gospel reading can't help but be edifying. I rank it above even Augustine and Aquinas for my guidance of such matters!) This gospel witness has always been a troublesome dilemna for Christians who would justify war-making by Christians, as our Lord and Saviour rejected violence as an option for his followers.

I am not saying that Christians can't interpret things in different ways (obviously, following the emperoror Constantine in the 4th century and the "Christianization" of the Roman Empire, there has continously been a stream of Christian thought that has found a way to justify Christian participation in the wars of the state. In fact, the just war tradition has never not justified a war undertaken by its political leaders! Still, I respect that tradition in principle, in that it is inherently biased against the use of violence, and it considers the use of violence to always be a sin (if tragically necessary, in its view.) As a result of this bias against violence, just war and pacifism shares much more common ground than various pagan/secular idealogies of violence (for example, Bush's "premptive strike" doctrine. One can buy into it or not as a national policy, but it clearly isn't Christian. Just a citizen, I think it endangers Americans rather than making them more secure.)

I believe, in fact, that if the principles of just war theory--for example, civilian immunity and proportionality--were actually taken seriously, all modern wars would be unjustifiable. Beyond the testimony of the Jesus and the New Testament, I can think of no stronger argument against present-day Christians participating in war than the just war tradition itself.

The state may well engage in warfare. The story of Jesus and his temptation in the wilderness seems to clearly indicate that Satan is the ruler of the "kingdoms" of this world. Jesus refused Satan's offer to engage in violent coercion on the behalf of God's purposes then, and he did so consistently throughout his life and ministry, choosing to lay down his life rather than call upon armies of angels, and castigating Peter for cutting off the ear of the Roman guard coming to arrest him, saying "put down you sword. All who live by the sword, shall die by the sword." Coercive domination, exploitation, and violence, whether legally sanctioned or subversive, are a principal means by which Satan works, according to the New Testament (in my reading.)

Anyway, I guess the least I would ask is for a bit of respect for Christians committed to nonviolence as a matter of daily discipleship in following the Lordship of Jesus (if however imperfectly and failingly.) I believe the sins of violence can be forgiven and redeemed, like any other sin. We are all sinners in need of God's grace. But I don't believe it behooves Christians to call what is evil/sin "good" or "just." even if that would suit the interests of the particular nation of which you are a part in a given situation.

Anyway, I am happy to engage further in this dialogue, if it is deemed edifying. For example, there is some interesting angles on the Old Testament, in which Yahweh the Warrior repeatedly says, "don't put your faith in chariots and military alliances", put trust in Me, and I will do the fighting for you." The "battle at the Red Sea" narrarated in Exodus 14 and 15 is the classic example of this, and, of course, a paradigmatic story for the whole Bible of how God's liberation works in history. The "conquest" of Jericho and the battle of Debra and Barak in Judges 5 would also fit this model, as would the strange ways in which Gideon fights later in the book of Judges. Clearly the people of Israel did engage in warfare and increasingly put their trust in earthly kings and armies. The Hebrew Bible tells us that this was the road to judgment, as both of the Israelite kingdoms (North and South) were declared "dead ends" by God. A decisive new beginning is glimpsed in Exile through the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, a vision for a kingdom not based on armies, temples, and kings. This new beginning reached its fulfillment in the Incarnation, amazingly counter-cultural life, teachings, and ministry of Jesus. His particular way of nonviolent living (and dying) was validated and vindicated by God through the Ressurection. Paul says that through the victory of the cross (paradoxical, no?)God made a "spectacle" of the Powers that Be, revealing their true colors and showing the world another way, God's way of redemption and shalom, a day which the whole Creation is still groaning for. But it is already happening, and through he Holy Spirit we can participate in God's movement to bring an new heaven and earth to fruition. All honor and glory and praise and power belong to the one who sits upon the throne, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Amen, brothers.

Peace in Christ, Kent

16

Kent,

Isn't it likely that a difference in eschatology is one of the reasons we have different views of pacifism?

You say that "a day which the whole Creation is still groaning for ... is already happening, and through he Holy Spirit we can participate in God's movement to bring an new heaven and earth to fruition," and earlier you talk about "how God's liberation works in history." It's my suspicion, which may or may not be true, that those who use phrases like these believe that the church will gradually improve society until we are perfect enough for Christ to return. Or, if that exact formulation isn't correct, you are more optimistic than I am: you believe that the church will be able to make things better and better.

I don't believe evil will be defeated until Christ returns with his angels. The church may get better, but as we do, the contrast with the world will become greater, and the world will persecute us, even in the United States.

I wish I had more time to spend on this. I will post it anyway and will look forward to your reply, if any, later.escha

17

Instead, true pacifism is a commitment to actively make peace by working for justice in the context of non-violent resistance, often at great personal cost.

Christy, I certainly respect your commitment to peace. I cannot help but wonder though at the "working for justice" part. Of course there is a precedent set in the Bible for reasoning with a brother but those admonitions are for the believers. What about unbelievers? I haven't reached a point yet where I'm ready to lie down and allow someone to run a steamroller over me. Working for justice requires the willingness of both parties to do so. As far as I could tell, Saddam and others like him were not willing to negotiate anything.

So I am left with the question: are we as Christians to withdraw and not stand against evil? Are we to retreat into the darkness while braver souls confront our enemies? And for the record, I believe our enemies are anyone who wants to see us dead.

Justice has been served for those in Iraq who have suffered at the hands of a madman. Justice has provided grooms their brides and mothers their children. Justice has heard the cries of the needy and answered.

I suppose I've reached a point of zero tolerance for bullies. I have never liked bullies and recognize that apart from a radical conversion by God, they will remain bullies. After all is said and done with evangelism, it's not my job to change them, but the Spirit's. But if a bully comes through my door without an invitation, God help them because they're going to need it.

But I don't believe it behooves Christians to call what is evil/sin "good" or "just." even if that would suit the interests of the particular nation of which you are a part in a given situation.

I do not believe that it is evil to fight evil and even make a preemptive strike against evil if you are fully aware of its character. It's one thing if someone calls me a name. It's another if they physically attack me. The enemies that have come against the United States do not use words, but bombs and airplanes. As a Christian, I would think that when the opposing party has left the dialogue, then words are futile. I don't believe God would have us arguing with the demonic force. Deliverance results in freedom although it's a rough ride getting there.

18

Good points Joe and good debate.
Small correction if you don't mind.
If you source the original bloggers Joshuas conclusions weren't the difficulty. Carry on.

19

Kent,

I have no problem with Christian pacifists theologically in that I can respect how you came to those beliefs. However, I live in the United States which is a representative democracy defended by a volunteer citizen military. In my society pacifists are social parasites. I am always curious in how "pacifists" view reporting crimes to the police. After all there is slight difference between committing violence to defend ones self and using the police as a proxy to commit violence on your behalf. Which on a larger scale is what a nation’s military does for its citizens. To embrace the fruits of violence while sniping at those who provide one’s safety is in my view not only parasitic but also hypocritical.

20

Dear dialogue partners:

Ed Jordan is correct and quite perceptive that eschatological orientation is at the heart of the matter here. I believe that Jesus came proclaiming and inititating the kingdom of God, and inviting any and all into its way of living (the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) or Jesus's inaugural sermon in the synague at Nazareth (Luke 4)are good places to start in understanding the qualities of that kingdom way, but the whole Gospels spell it out and the book of Acts and epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John add interpretation and application for new contexts. Again, I would encourage you to immerse yourself in these writings, before turning to other sources for ethics.) My view, which I think is the New Testament's view, is that the kingdom is "already come, but not yet completed." The work is underway, and the victory has decisively been won in the cross/resurrection, but there is yet a future consumation. The church and each born again believer is a new creation, the "first fruits" of this kingdom and of eternal life/resurrection power for living here and now, participating in the "mopping up" operation of repudiating Satan and his work and ways. Of course, the Powers still exist and often oppose God's way, and we continue to sin and are not fully obedient to the Lordship of Christ, and the Creation is still partially in bondage to futility (Romans 8.) All these things mean we will still suffer and fall short of God's glory. Thankfully we also are given the assurance and promise that "seeking first the kingdom," we will find it--a new family, a new way of resolving conflicts, a new way of sharing resources with each other, a new way of handling power and making decisions, a new way that loves even enemies. We live "between the times" in the "already but not yet"--the old age has passed away, the new is not fully here, but the signs of it are everywhere, with those with eyes to see and ears to hear the call of Jesus to "follow me." Like a mustard seed, leaven in bread, salt, and light, it is growing and spreading, even in small, humble ways, and we can be a part of God's movement and mission. This means doing things more and more God's way, not the way of the Gentiles who "Lord it over each other," as Jesus elucidated.

As to "Zion's" comments, I don't think I was sniping at soldiers or police. Furthermore, I think I let my life bear witness as to whether or not I am a "parasite" on society, though you would not know about that unless you lived in my community, I suppose. The Christians of the first three centuries--the early church--did not serve in the armed forces or police and were perhaps accused of the same thing. I think I was just testifying to my conviction that God calls Christians to repudiate the use of fatal violence. Furthermore, I do not seek lethal police or military protection and would reject if I had a choice. I do believe there are non-lethal ways to engage in policing work, and non-combantant roles in military which I would find more open as a Christian vocation. I recognize, of course, that the government will pursue lethal force (to the tune of $500 billion in Pentagon spending, last time I checked.)

In the end, I wonder if those that have a problem with Christian pacifism don't have a problem with Jesus himself? And by the way, it may surprise you that, while upholding (and even creating) just war doctrine, Augustine and Aquinas were both committed pacifists, one in his role as a priest/bishop, the other as a "brother" in a monastic order. They both made pledges to not kill to hold such roles in the church. Perhaps ironically, the Catholic church of which they were members is the biggest "peace church" going today, through the calling of priests, monks, and nuns, and the papal teaching which holds peacemaking and nonviolence as treasured practices of the church. Of course, the Protestant Reformation rejected the idea of there being "two levels" of discipleship, one for clergy, one for laity. For some Prostenants this led in practice to everyone sinking beneath the "counsels" of Christ to the level of a laity not bound by Christ's teachings in certain areas. For the Anabaptists, out of which Mennonites come, they called all Christians to the standard and teaching and Lordship of Christ. Of course, this leads to complications and has more than its share of challenges and ambiguities, not the least of which is faithfulness. Thankfully, God's grace is sufficient for such "clay vessels" as are folks like me.

(Turning to "the politics of Bush" as versus the "politics of Jesus"--the name of a great book by John Howard Yoder, in case you are interested in challenging yourself with the best argument for a normative Christian pacifism...) As to the oft-cited valorization of preemptive strikes, I have my doubts, especially given the way it was used in Iraq, where the perceived threat seems to have been greatly exaggerated, manipulated, and misunderstood. Furthermore, it flies in the face of the basic standards of international law, which is the greatest fruit of the just war tradition (that is, you can't just attack another country because you don't like their government, if they aren't attacking you first.) Thirdly, does the logic work both ways, or is the Bush doctrine only for America? For example, it was very clear to Sadaam in the months leading up to the war that the US represented a very real and imminent threat to his country. Did that, therefore, give him the right to strike at the US first (should he have had some means, which of course, he didn't. Did anyone notice how, despite past violations against them, none of Iraq's neighbors called for this war? Don't you think they had a better sense of what kind of threat Sadaam really represented?) Unless you grant that N Korea or Syria or Iran has every legal right and sanction to strike the US now (it seems clear that they could make a better case of being threatened by the US than the US could about Iraq threatening them), you either have to give up preemptive strikes as off the table for everyone, or acknowledge the incredibly unfair doctrine as being for the US only. In any case, in attacking Iraq, Bush responding exactly how Osama wanted him, too. Our troops are now sitting targets, Iraq is now newly a hotbed for terrorism (Al Queda attacks from 1993-September 11, 2001? Five. In the two years since? Seventeen.) The whole world, especially the Arab Middle East, sees US as a invading imperial power, set on dominating the Moslem world (just as Osama claimed), the Israel-Palestine conflict is further than ever from resolution, and terrorists are more easily recruited by our enemies, while our allies increasingly worry more about reigning in (or distancing themselves from) the US then working together on matters of shared concern. Well, enough for now. I appreciate how no one has called me too many bad names so far. It's nice to get a fair hearing and thoughtful responses, even given some obvious different orientations. Peace in Christ, brothers (by the way, are there any women who participate on this page? This is my first "blog" experience, so I'm new to the ropes.

21

Just for the record as one of Joshs 'detractors' I am NOT a pacifist-but I wont bore you by going on about my views here- you can read it on my blog

22

I fear I need to clarify that I did not intend my comment about social parasitism to be a personal barb. It has always seemed to me that it is the logical conclusion to such a philosophy. Of course we live in the real world where philosophical absolutes are non-existent. I recognize the great work for, not only the Kingdom of God, but also the state that pacifists have contributed to humanity. In particular in the US members of many of various Mennonite (sp?) traditions were key in the abolition of slavery and contributed to the "underground railroad" which helped escaped slaves reach safety. Several Medal of Honor winners were medics/corpsman who served and died while still remaining true to their principles of non-violence. If my earlier comments caused offence I beg forgiveness.

I am curious, if I could again question how pacifism works in practice, is the admonition we are to arrange are life around "thou shall not kill," or "turn the other cheek?" It seems there is some distinction being made between those who do violence to kill and those whose violence seems to have less finality to it. As a soldier can I serve the state and God by only maiming the enemy? Is it morally palatable to cripple someone but immoral to kill them. Scripturely was Jesus’ actions in cleansing the temple still pacifistic since he didn't kill anyone?

23

I'd say that God is not a pacifist, nor is Jesus a pacifist. There is such a thing as Righteous anger. God has displayed it in his jealous attitude towards the things that would seperate people from Him. Jesus displayed it when he drove the money changers from the temple. The fact that God is not a pacifist does not mean that it is not in his will for us to be pacifists. Afterall, "blessed are the peacemakers." On the other hand, Governments are given the authority to govern by God, not that governments always make Godly decisions. In carrying out this sanctioned authority, the government may deem that execution is necessiary for a crime of a personal nature, or that war is necessiary to avenge wrongs done by nations of people. I would also say that it a possible for a person to remain pacifist in nature and meanwhile act as the government's instrument in either the executionary role or as a soldier.

24

God wants us as American Christians to kill all Arabs! This is obviously the message that Jesus brought.

Conservative Christians for more dick n bush in 2004!

25

Rick: You say that "governments are given the authority to govern by God," which I think is a bibilically sound view, but what are the implications for this belief in a democracy? After all, our government, presumably ordained by God, is supposedly governed "by the people and for the people." So our very structure of government compells our participation in the governing. If we feel the Bush Doctrine, or capital punishment, or whatever, is immoral and unbiblical, we can vote for Kerry. Our constitution also gives us the right to publically assemble in protest, lobby Congress, write books and articles against Bush, etc. So I don't think its so easy to separate our personal convictions about right and wrong from our views about what government ought to be doing. If we see our government acting in a way we believe is unjust, I would say we have an obligation to use the mechanisms provided by the Constitution try to do something about it.

26

Hey all: The resident Christian pacifist emerges again. Thanks again for your courteous responses. I (obviously) don't have answers to all life's persistent questions. I also try not to take such matters too personally, in any case. As to whether Jesus had righteous anger, I say, surely he did, on numerous occassions! Yet I often see the incident in the temple with the moneychangers cited as somehow an expression of Jesus' willingness to kill other people. I think this reading is incredibly dubious, first and foremost in that nobody was killed, no attempt was made to kill anyone, and, as far as we know, nobody even got hurt! Someone said earlier in the discussion that since the God of the OT was not pacifist, than Christ could not be, or the Trinity would be comprised. I wonder if the reverse isn't true? If Christ was non-violent by nature and in principle and without exception, what does that say about the nature and will of God? It seems to me the best expression of God's nature availabe to us is his Son, testified to in Scripture and in the Holy Spirit, and in the church reading the Scripture in light of the Spirit. At the very least, Jesus' example is the best model I know of that human beings have to follow. I put my trust and faith there, and leave vengeance to God.

However, I believe there are many forceful, physical, confrontative, and courageous actions available to Christians, and I encourage the regular practice of putting our very bodies on the line for Christ's truth and God's justice. Where I draw the line, and where I believe Jesus drew the line for his followers, is lethal violence. Gandhi in India helped ended British imperialism, Christians in Eastern Europe joined with other nonviolent dissidents to bring the Soviet empire to an end. Read "Lest Innocent Blood be Shed" and see how the Christian community in Le Chambon, France under the leadership of Pastor Andre Trocme actively and nonviolently resisted the genodical policies of the Nazis and saved hundreds of Jewish lives. Examples of nonviolent resistance to evil by Christians (and many others) are numerous, if often overlooked. In fact they happen on a daily basis everywhere and keep the world going 'round (mothers are one of the greatest practioners I know of.) Of course, there are also many tales of martyrdom. There are surely no guarantees of "success." For example, over 5000 or so of my foreparents in the faith, the Anabaptists, were killed by both Catholic and Protestant state churches in the 16th century for their stance on adult baptism (and pacifism and non-swearing of oaths of allegiance, among other things.) Clearly that option is always available to Christians. It ain't easy, it takes a community committed to it, but it is the call of Christ upon our lives. Listen for it, brothers.

Going back to the issue of pacifists being "parasites" on society, I sometimes wonder who is the bigger parasite on our nation today, pacifists or the Pentagon?! I can think of no other branch of "big government" with a more egregious and systematic record of mega-waste, fraud, corporate welfare to the tune of trillions, and unaccounted for funds. We spend billions building weapons systems to fight a Soviet threat that has disappeared. We spend billions more on missile systems that have never been proven to work. There is no greater example of "pork barrel" politics than the military-industrial complex, with weapons contractors and military bases placed strategically in every Congressional district so that everyone gets a piece of the pie (or a place at the trough!) Taking out non-discertionary "entitlement" programs (that is, the promises/covenant the government has made with the American people to reciprocate their pay-in of taxes with the meeting of needs down the road) and about 50% of the federal budget goes for paying for past, present, and future war-preparations and war-making. And now, with the greatest expanse of big government in the 20th century, we have the monstrosity called "Homeland Security." If "homeland security" isn't what the Pentagon has being doing all these years, I think it's mission is greatly off-track! Apparently overseas imperialism has been the heart of the mission, especially since our first imperial adventure in the Spanish-American War of 1898 in which we seized the Phillipines, Guam, and Cuba (leading to our Marines killing 200,000 Filipinos. Of course, we seized a good chunk of Mexico way back in the 1840's. And then there was that nasty episode of genocide against the Indians and several hundred year of slavery of Africans.) Where are the true conservatives who have a righteous concern about such Pentagon parasitism? I guess if you are willing to fight and die for the narrow corporate interests of Bush and Cheney and the top 5% crowd, I wish you God's protection! I don't question the amazing bravery and willingness to sacrifice. I just think it is being tragically misused and misplaced. I don't think Americans are really willing to sacrifice blood for Haliburton's profits. I don't Jesus calls to you to kill anyone.

All of this "defense" spending takes critically needed funds away from rebuilding our civilian infrastructure, education on all levels (pre-school through college), universal health care, environmental conservation, you name it--the things that really makes us a good society and sustainable for the long haul. Many of the needs that everyday American express could be easily be met (not to mention budget deficit reduction) if even a portion of the lard given to the weapons corporations was redirected (we are down to two or three mega-corporations who get the vast bulk of this corporate welfare.) Investing in social services, like education or police, or infrastructure, creates many more jobs than the same funds put into weapons, and, they actually produce a socially useful product! (rather than a unprecendentely destructive one. For example, I feel better knowing America still has 2000 or so nuclear bombs, is willing to use them in a first strike annihilation of civilian populations, and wants to build a new generation of such global terrororizers.) I also feel safer knowing that the greatest proliferator of weapons of mass destruction in the Mid East/South Asia region, Pakistan (followed closely by Israel), now has the status of a NATO ally as far as weapons technology transfer. Crazy world. Iraq had no weapons and no Al Queda, but we go after them. Easy target, I guess. Might else get 90% of our resources bogged down there as well as anywhere.

Well, I've rambled again. From reading the above posts, I repeately hear expressed a sense that the Gospel of Jesus Christ really has no power to transform the world. Why do you believe in it then? Seems like a pretty weak religion you got. For my money, democracy, hospitals, public education, the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, services for mentally and physically challenged folk, and much, much more which is the fruit of the Gospel (and outright inventions by Christians, in many cases)has done a little something to make life on earth a better place. It is not utopian or idealistic to recognize this reality even in the midst of cyclical and virulent evil in this same world. Have a little more faith in the Gospel way. It's a great way to live. You don't have to actually fear the Powers and their death-dealing agents if you actually believe in resurrection. Of course, we are all practicing atheists much of the time, because we like to put our trust in money and tanks and prestige and our nation/way of life more than God and God's way. Thankfully there is empowering grace and the church where we can start living these practices out. Peace in Christ, Kent

27

M.R. -
I took the weekend off from the cyber-world and just now saw your comments. I think we have very different concepts of what "justice" is and what peace making is. My guess is that you are looking at justice as something that is meted out to an individual. That's part of it, but there is also a structural element to justice, and peace making involves trying to bring the world a little closer to being a place where the innate dignity of every human being is respected. This is not because I believe that we will someday reach some grand utopia where we'll all be happy and nice to each other. Rather, actively resisting injustice non-violently is both an act of witness and a way of seeing the image of God in the people around us. A good pacifist stands against bullies and abuses of power - we're just not holding a gun when we do it.

28

I think the confusion surrounding this issue is the same confusion that is corrupting our justice system. Allow me to explain.

As christians on a person to person basis, we are called to love and have mercy on the individuals God puts in our path.

However the state, which God has given authority in scripture is called to dispense justice on individuals for their actions.

We've gotten the two confused.

On a personal one to one basis we refuse to forgive, sometimes even our own family members.

The courts meanwhile instead of dispensing justice evenly tend to show mercy for anyone who has a sob story to tell. (I wouldn't have killed them but my parents were abusive.)

It's the same confusion when it comes to war.

As Christians we are called to love those around us.

However, the state is given authority by God, and he may use that power to make war in the fight against evil.

Romans 13: 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

Too bad about the taxes thing, eh?

But, the point is that God sets up nations and rulers for his own purpose. In this country, we have a voice in government and certainly as citizens we have a responsibility to exercise our rights, (as Paul called upon his rights as a Roman citizen.)

Yet God has the final word and all things will work together to suit his purposes.

29

since God has the final word, we may as well grap all we can like the rest of the American government. i think I'll trade in my 45mpg tdi golf for a hummer, and i'll supprot cuts in programs for schools to make Bush richer because God has it all under control.

30

And, the Bush-hating dick's death spiral into cluelessness accelerates.

31

really? cluelessness? it is the logilccal estension of any arguement that leaves everything in god's hands.

32

Are you, like, 12 years old? Or is something wrong with your keyboard?

33

Setting aside the kevin and dicknbush imbroglio, I frequently see people cite Romans 13 to justify everything the government does. I think a better reading of the passage is to say, "if" the government is protecting the innocent and punishing the wicked, "if" the government is no cause of fear for the godly, then it is fulfilling its God-ordained role of serving humanity and deserves respect and support. However, we all know that this is often not the case. For example, this same Roman government cited in Romans 13 unjustly executed both Jesus and Paul. Did the good truly have nothing to fear from it? Or where Jesus and Paul wicked? Should we really honor and obey the state with regard to these kind of acts? Furthermore, it is edifying to set Romans 13 alongside Revelation 13 to get a fuller picture of the NT view of the state. In Revelation 13, a generation after Paul wrote, the same Roman empire is describes as a ravenous beast, an analogue of Babylon, and a front-man for Satan (or a whore, to be gender-inclusive in my metaphors!) Furthermore, in the temptation story in the wilderness, Jesus seems to understand kingdoms as being in Satan's hand. He also calls his "ruler", Herod, a "fox", not exactly a term of respect and endearment. And even in honoring and submitting to government in Rom. 13, it says nothing about participating in its wars and violence. In fact, the early church refrained from being a part of the military. Like some of what I read about Marine mythology, for example, the military often becomes a cult onto itself, worshipped the God of War that goes by different names in different times and places.

Walter Wink has a good understanding about Christian attitudes towards the Powers in general, whether they be the state, the family, the university, the economic system, race, class, you name it. His slogan is "the Powers are good, the Powers are fallen, the Powers must be redeemed." In any given instant they may be carrying out some partial function of their God-ordained role, while also rebelling against the sovereignity of God and seeking their own self-glorifying expansion and autonomy (this is inherent to Power systems.) Whether we are conservatives, revolutionaries, or reformers will depend on what part of government we are addressing in context, and we will often need to hold in tension all three roles. The only limit on any of these roles is as Christians as they we can't use violence, whether in conserving or resisting or reforming the state. However, discerning the "signs of the times" in the body of the believers may reveal when a fully idolatrous spirit has ascended the throne, so to speak, as in Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany, or the Roman Empire of John the Seer's time, a perilous time when noncooperation becomes the demand of faithfulness. I believe we have approached or gone beyond such a juncture today in America, even while government still fulfills some of its God-ordained role of serving the needs of people and God's natural creation, the most disadvantaged being the top priority according to the Old Testament kingship standards of justice that were constantly upheld by the prophets of old. (And prophets of our own time, like MLK Jr.)

To understand Romans 13, you need to read what comes before it in Romans 12, where Paul talks about love of enemies/persecutors. (Seriously, go read Romans 12 and then Romans 13.) The enemey Paul most distrusted and needed to love was the Roman empire itself. In the end, it caught up to him and killed him. We would do well to have a similarly loving/compassionate distrust of any superpower abroad today.

Peace in Christ, Kent

34

In response to what Kent Sensenig said:

I repeately hear expressed a sense that the Gospel of Jesus Christ really has no power to transform the world. Why do you believe in it then? Seems like a pretty weak religion you got.

I believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ has the power to transform the world but I do not see it conflicting with my belief that in certain situations; a more intense, forceful approach is necessary. I am talking about a direct confrontation with evil. Jesus Christ was a man of peace but He also was a man of action who wasn’t afraid to confront when necessary. How many of those who consider themselves pacifists would have been able to witness His justified anger at the money-changers in the temple? Anger is not a bad thing but a correct response to certain situations where injustice, evil and heresy prevail.

Christy’s words challenged me.

…there is also a structural element to justice, and peace making involves trying to bring the world a little closer to being a place where the innate dignity of every human being is respected.

As Christians, I believe we are to relate to both our fellow believers and unbelievers with respect. However, not everyone ascribes to the Christian worldview of achieving peace. We are to be ambassadors for Christ and testify to His goodness. Where the woods start getting murky for me is when I try to discern the difference between showing that respect while at the same time upholding the standard of justice. I cannot respect evil.

This is a very deep issue. Jesus Christ had the ability to wipe out His enemies. He could have chosen not to bear the cross and die a sacrificial death – but He went willingly and peacefully. However, when He lived upon the earth, His ministry bore a strong passionate commitment toward setting the captive free.

If anyone has witnessed a deliverance, you know it is not an easy process. Many deliverances take hours because of the back and forth dialogue between the person ministering it and the demonic entity. There are various reasons for it but the point is, you cannot negotiate with a demon. You cannot ask it nicely to leave but instead must command it to leave in the name of Jesus Christ.

I am a Christian first and an American second. I try to keep the two distinct. When we went to war with Iraq, as a Christian, I wished a solution could have been found other than war. But I also accepted the fact that evil cannot be overcome without a fight and evil must be overcome. Evil, by its very nature, defies any approach to reach a peaceful co-existence. There simply will never be a way to live with evil. It must be destroyed. Christ overcame death and the bondage of sin. There was a violent throwdown in the spiritual arena over it and as a Christian, I cannot escape it.

Is peaceful resistance an option? Yes, but I’m not sure it is the only option for a Christian. Our country is dedicated to preserving its security and there will be times when peaceful dialogue is not possible. Everyone knows that the kid who is picked on by the bully usually finds peace only after he has stood up to him.

The United States is not the only country to realize evil when it sees it. Other countries recognize evil but may lack the resources to do anything about it. The decision of our government was to confront. It had gone on long enough and was given enough time to abide by the rules. I stand by my government’s decision because I realize the implications of allowing evil to continue. As Jesus refused to turn a blind eye toward a mockery being made of the sacred purpose of the temple, so my country made a very difficult decision in not allowing a flagrant defiance of the U.N.’s resolutions to continue.

Perhaps what is really at the heart of this issue is the definition of evil.

35

I respect and share M.R. Maguire's conviction that evil must be passionately resisted and confronted at times by Christians, or any person of good will. The incident in the Temple with the moneychangers is just one example of Jesus doing this. His exorcisms of demons is another apt and classic citation. Jesus' ministry and mission was truly a battle with the Satanic from beginning to end.

Here is the rub, though. Jesus' approach was never lethally violent. The term "spiritual warfare"--though sometimes distorted--is a very apt description. And this does not mean it was not a very real and of-this-world confrontation. But it was never lethally violent. To combat evil with evil or non-Christian means (that is lethal violence) is simply to perpetuate and escalate the evil in new forms and directions. Jesus' life and death was all about breaking the futile cycle of pagan violence and freeing his followers from ever having to get enslaved and trapped in that pagan way again. We have been freed from all such worldly death-dealing violence, thanks be to God.

Again, you can find no instance where Jesus' righteous anger ever led to anything like lethal taking of life (and he was God's Son, so if anyone had a right to take life, he did! But because he was God's Son, it was not in his nature to kill, but to love, even if that loving grace took the rigorous form of stark judgement and confrontation of evil in both individual lives and systems of oppression.) Also, nowhere does he speak approvingly of the lethal violence of the state, though, he is very aware that such lethality is a very real dynamic. It cost him his life, and he knew that it would from early on in his ministry, if not the beginning. Jesus was a far greater realist than Machavelli or Neibuhr about how the world works, and what really works in the world. He saw deeper into the "logos" reality of the universe than anyone before or since, because he was the Logos, the Word, the Wisdom of God, and know wisdom is stronger, deeper, or truer.

So, that fact that Jesus expressed righteous anger against evil in no way justifies our use or support of lethal violence as Christians. It just ain't there to be claimed, so the money-changer incident holds no water in support violence. But that's good news, not bad! That is the liberating gospel truth. We have a greater power than death, a power that paradoxically conquers death and violence, even by absorbing it and dying to it. God's promise is vindication and resurrection for every act that is in Christ. We must dying to be born again, taking up our cross daily in our pilgrimage into God's kingdom and its ways.

I also very much doubt the ability of my government to be able to discern when and where exactly evil needs to be destroyed. I have heard expressed great confidence that Iraq was an unambigously wise discernment, for example. But this belied by many "facts on the ground." As I've said already, the invasion of Iraq to my view, 1) was exactly what Osama bin Laden would have desired as a US response. We took the bait!; 2) has greatly increased the level of terrorism in the region, most ironically and particulary in Iraq itself, which was previously not a great source/sponsor of terrorism. Now it is a magnet for jihadists; 3) has made American security and credibility in the long-term much weaker; 4) has required and will continue to require a shameful waste of treasure and blood in a very wrong-headed and reckless adventure motivated by bad neo-con imperialist ideology and special interests (weapons-makers and oil firms form quite an alliance.)We can only hope some day of accountability is near for those who designed and supported this policy (that includes folks like Senator Kerry, who gave it the green light); 5) deeply undermined the very basis of international law by comitting straightforward crimes of war (this is why the US continues to refuse to join the World Court in the Hague and be held accountable within the community of nations.) It was also clearly an attempt to destroy the (already weak) power of the UN. However, the credibility of the UN has actually come out of the crisis much strengtened, while US credibility has rarely been lower.

Well, I could go on. These are all generally "secular" reasons, but all truth is God's truth. Illegal and immoral war-making as seen in Iraq (did I mention the more than 10,000 civilians that have been killed in Iraq, making Bush responsible for 5 times the carnage in innocent life as September 11) is wrong because it goes against the will of Christ for Christians, but it also makes very bad national policy. We will continue to suffer from those decisions for a generation or two, tragically, and the world will be no more safe or secure or just. Have mercy on us, Lord.

Peace in Christ, Kent

36

I dare any Christian who isn't a pacifist to read Richard Hays' _The Moral Vision of the New Testament_ and still think that Christians can be anything other than pacifists. I thought in much the same way until I read this book--which looks at the comprehensive evidence of the scripture, verse by verse--and I came away convinced that pacifism is the only way Christians can live and be faithful. If you're struggling with this issue, I encourage you to read the book.

Frankly, the smug attitude of many Christians on this board toward those who profess pacifism disgusts me. The blindness is amazing.

If we say we worship the Lamb that was slain, we must follow his lead and become a witness of this Lamb to the world, even if it costs us the blood of ourselves, our wives, and our children. Christian reasons for rejecting all violence are not out of some horror for war, or some vain sense of "peace", or some vague desire for justice. They are shaped by the New Testament witness, and those who are pacifists act in simple obedience to the God who willed that his own Son should give himself up to a death on the cross. We make this choice in the hope and the anticipation that God's love will finally prevail through the way of the cross, despite our inability to see how this is possible.

Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus reenacted in the church; those who fall to the way of violence will be living a Gospel that is, ultimately, a lie. Whenever God's people give up the predictable ways of violence and self-defense, they are forced to formulate imaginative new responses to the world around them, responses as startling as going the second mile to carry the burden of a soldier who had compelled the defenseless follower of Jesus to carry it one mile first. These responses are the only way Christ will be shown to a dying world.

Only if the church lives in obedience to Jesus' command to non-violence will it become the sphere where the future of God's righteousness intersects--and challenges--the present tense of human existence. The way of peace is costly; it will cost us our lives. But the price is right.

37

An excellent topic and one that deserves much more discussion....our God is a righteous God...and he uses Nations to carry out his justice.

Steven

38

I would read Romans 13 much differently than the pacifists. I believe that authorities means civil authorities. I believe the sword means physical instruments. I believe evildoers are called to be afraid because the civil authorities will use these physical weapons against them. If there are to be no physical weapons, then apparently there should be no civil authorities. But the scripture does make reference to taxes. (not tithes and offerings) So it would seem the scripture is referring specifically to civil government. Also, if there are no just wars, then what right would government have to chase down a robber or murderer within our country and enforce civil laws. If the robber would not turn himself in peacefully, what right would the police have to grab him, or shoot him? It would seem that there is a civil government, they do restrain evil with physical means, and Christians are called to remain in the same position they were in when converting. Jesus didn't tell the tax collector to stop being a tax collector, but to do it fairly. As to the point about when government does wrong, of course we don't follow authority when it would contradict a higher level of authority. It would seem plain from the scripture that civil government restraining evil with physical weapons does not contradict higher authority.

39

Proclear toric lenses hard contact lenses Acuvue bifocals Biomedics 38 lenses Acuvue bifocal lenses contact lenses discount coupon code cheap contact lenses coloured contact lenses Acuvue 2 colours purchase contact lenses online contact lenses prescription Soflens 66 toric lenses Bausch and Lomb Soflens 66 toric buy Acuvue contact lenses order discount contact lenses online contact eye lenses Surevue contact lenses Biomedics 55 contact lenses Acuvue 2 Biomedics coloured contact lenses freshlook contact lenses ciba contacts toric contact lenses contact lenses care contact lenses supplier Bausch Lomb softlens multifocal Focus contacts contact lenses discount coupon Biomedics toric contacts Biomedics toric contact lenses Optima fw contact lenses discount store Biomedics Acuvue canada contact lenses order contact lenses manufacturer Acuvue 2 colours enhancers Acuvue 2 color contact lenses buy contact lenses on line Acuvue ii Acuvue 1day contact lenses Soflens Acuvue 2 colors discount Acuvue advance contact lenses Acuvue lenses Acuvue toric contact lenses Acuvue 2 rebate discount contact lenses Proclear compatibles toric contact lenses Proclear contact lenses Bausch Lomb contact lenses online Acuvue coupon 38 Biomedics contact lensese bifocal contact lenses Hydrogenics contact lenses Soflens 66 torics contact lenses Acuvue 2 colour opaques