Should we condemn WAR?
What do we do about this ”hideous, hellish tragedy”? asks Cory Harrison
Iwas intrigued recently as I read the following November 10, 2009 Associated Press headline: President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan.
I am quite certain that I am not the only person who voted for the sitting President, thinking I would never read a headline such as that.
In my part of the Salvation Army world, to be opposed to adding troops to Afghanistan and opposed to war in general is to be considered the in minority at best.
Mohammed Khatib, secretary of the Bilin, West Bank, village council, whom many refer to as a modern-day Gandhi, said recently, “Nonviolence is our most powerful weapon. If they cannot accuse us of terrorism, they cannot stop us. The world will support us.”
In response to this quote, an SA Officer friend of mine responded, “That has to be one of the worst ideas and I am happy to see that no one followed him on it. It is a quick way to ensure evil spreads and has dominion. The monsters are not moved to compassion by pacifism, they consider it weakness.”
In light of the President’s impending decision to send more troops to war and in reflection of my Officer friend’s comments, I thought it would be useful for us to have a simple reminder of three foundational Salvation Army statements on the subject of modern warfare.
1) From Chosen to be a Soldier, the Orders and Regulations for Salvationists:
The Salvationist will regard war as an evil and will condemn the use of force as a means of settling differences between nations.
2) From the Founder, William Booth in The General’s Letters:
One thing is plain-every true soldier of The Salvation Army would cry day and night to God to avert so dreadful a calamity as war. Let him shut his ears to all the worldly, unscriptural, un-Christian talk about war being a necessity. It cannot be a necessity before God that tens of thousands of men should be launched into eternity will all manner of revengeful passionate feelings in their souls, and too often, according to the testimony of these who know all about it, with dreadful blasphemies on their lips. Whatever may be the right method of setting human disputes and preventing earthly calamities, this cannot be the divine plan. This cannot be the will of God.
3) From The Officer’s Review-1933 by Bramwell Booth:
War is hideous-a fierce and hellish tragedy. The earth is red with blood and the sky dark with the wrath of God. War-like preparations and wicked ambitions, whenever they have been found together in the history of the world, have always produced abominable consequences. WAR VIOLATES ALMOST EVERY RULE GOD HAS LAID DOWN.
In my country, we live in a very unique time; a time with incredible support of war as a means of settling differences between nations. Much of this support has come from within ‘church’ and I would dare say The Salvation Army.
As a Salvationist, I am held to accountability to many aspect of the O&R; abstinence from alcohol and tobacco, support of the Army’s spirit and mission through attendance and participation, and financial giving to my local Corps.
This leaves me asking 3 complex questions:
Firstly, where are the Salvationists, Officers and Soldiers alike, who are “regarding war and evil and condemning the use of force…” ? Are they the majority or the minority in your Corps?
Secondly, to what lengths can we or should we go as Salvationist to “comdemn” war? Practically how do we live this aspect of Salvationism out?
Thirdly, am I a true soldier of The Salvation Army in that I have cried day and night for God to avert a “dreadful calamity of war?” Am I sitting by, while thousands are needlessly dying?
As for me, I am “shutting my ears to all the worldly, unscriptural, unchristian talk about war being a necessity.”
Writer: Cory Harrison is a life long Salvationist stirred by the mission of The Salvation Army. Cory spends his days enjoying coffee and community with the poor, oppressed and addicted.
Related posts:
36 Comments to Should we condemn WAR?
Leave a comment
Categories
- 1000 Post Celebration
- Areopagus
- Belief
- Blogroll
- COMING SOON
- Concise Oxford
- Creation
- Creative Arts
- Double~take
- Easter
- Ecclesia
- Education
- Ephemera
- FAD
- Featured
- From Russia with Blogs
- Gen whY?
- History
- JustThinking
- Lives lived
- Match factory
- Match Factory Events
- Ordination
- Personae
- Politics
- Power
- Ragamuffin
- Ramblings
- Redux - The Best of
- Resources
- Resurrected writers
- Reviews
- Rubicon Books
- Rubiconography
- Shades of grey
- Shades of grey
- Supper Club
- theRubi-Blog
- Think
- Thinkaloud
- Thought
- Uncategorized
- Urbanities
- Vox populi
Sound and Fury
- Slaves 5 Margaret Okubo, David, Johnny Gainey
- What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 12 Jim, Jim, Robert deidrick
- Politics #1 : Political parties - An Erroneous Assumption 4 Rochelle Stockman, Terry Camsey, Phil
- Murungu or Mwanangu 5 George, givesak, Andrea614Regent
- Heaven without hell 24 Mary Davis, Cadet Nathan Swartz, Andrew Bale
Great post (great to have theRubicon back in session too)…
I would think that Matthew 5:43-48 should be a good number 4 on your list. Seems to me that a denomination that professes to be a holiness denomination must see the direct link that Matthew’s gospel makes between “love” for enemies (i.e. not war) and “perfection”.
Thanks
Adam
I’m with you Cory, or should I say I’m with Jesus.
I am new to Army circles and even now I have a hard time identifying myself as a soldier, I prefer to tell people that I am working with (along side) the Salvation Army. I’m not only a full blown pacifist, I am also opposed to the SA (military style) uniform which seems to symbolically identify with the “just war argument”. I’ve heard the whole discussion about spiritual warfare being the reason for the uniform, I don’t buy it. Jesus and John and a couple of other Biblical writers made a very strong case for loving your neighbors, including your enemies. I think Tony Campolo and or Shane Claiborne like to say, “I pretty sure that doesn’t mean kill them”. Bart Campolo says, “Love God, love your neighbor, nothing else matters”. I think it’s just that simple.
Not to far from the war question is the question about policing. On uTube there is a video clip of a Utah State Trooper zapping a motorist with a taser for refusing to sign his citation. HELLO?
Recently Toronto hosted the G20 meetings. Our various levels of government spent more than $1,000,000,000 on security. Over that weekend 1,000 people were arrested. It was an ugly scene. People were beaten and tossed around in an attempt to keep the peace. Most people that I talk to seem to think that was okay because there were some bad guys that lit up a couple of cop cars. I don’t believe that peace can be attained through violent means, on either side of the protest line. I also don’t believe that you can force people to obey. If there is force then it’s not obedience, it’s oppression.
Peace is more than the absence of conflict. For too long we’ve been using violence to overwhelm the opposition. It’s not justice when the opposition is dead. You are not right because your force is mightier.
Pacifism is not about being passive, it’s about achieving peace through peaceful means.
Love God, love your neighbor, nothing else matters.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Jn 13:35
Wayne R
Cory, I see where you are coming from but I do not think that pacifism is the full anwser to the issue of war.
While peace is something we should seek we also need to remember that there are occasions where a use of force is not only proper but in my mind is called for.
Think about this situation: ” While you are walking down the road in your town you see a female being assaulted by one or more males. Would you just stand there and suggest they stop or would you intervene to end the assault and possibly stop a rape. Personally I believe the proper response from the Christian here is one which involves the use of force to stop the assault, the evil that is happening”
Now take this one step further to countries where people are being abused et al how should a nation which is Christian in its stance act.
So you see here that I believe there is a proper use of force and a proper time and place for war and the military.
The evildoers in this world are not going to stop what they are doing just because we point out its wrongness.
John Stephenson
John, I think you are confusing pacifism with passive-ism. Pacifism can and should be very active even proactive. If I were walking down your street, I’d get between the attackers and the victim. It might get a little messy, but that’s different than using deadly force as a means to an end.
Your other point about a nation that is Christian in its stance, what’s that?
Wayne R
Taking John’s assault scenario and reinterpreting it… should we then, whilst walking down the street, physically restrain people who we “think” are going to assault/rape another person…?
We could even call it a “pre-emptive strike”.
War is always labelled in such a way by politicians to give justification for their own actions. Rather than the last resort, war has become the normal action that politicians take to demonstrate that they are “strong leaders”. We shouldn’t confuse political spin with an appropriate Christian theological response to evil in the world, particularly when it comes to war.
Politicians will always say that war overcomes evil for the sake of peace. Christians should say (and I think this is what Cory is getting at) that war is only evil in disguise. True peace comes from the Prince of Peace, and from him alone. A “faith” response states that Peace (i.e. Christ) has overcome, is overcoming, and will “on that day” overcome evil once and for all.
Adam
Thanks for all the great comments. This is an important and strategic dialogue.
One thing I would like to hear more discussion on is not necessarily the argumentative viewpoints we always have on the subject of war, but noting that the views I expressed in the article were not only mine, they were SPECIFICALLY views of our SA founders.
My struggle is what do I do as a Salvationist in light of the Orders and Regulations of Salvation Army Soldiers to condemn war?
Thanks for the discussion Rubicon readers.
Cory H.
amen
The Bible is full of stories where God sent His people to war.It also tells us about the last war of Armageddon, do we refuse to fight in this war?
Ray.
Insightful question, Ray.
This is a tough one. It’s also worth noting that Gandhi said something to the effect of, “I have learned that it is impossible to fight the fanatical branch of Islam by peaceful means.”
Maybe the answer to whether we should fight also includes insightful dialogues and a lack of peaceful tones when sensitive issues are discussed.
The South African Allen Boesak said, “We will go before God to be judged, and God will ask us: ‘Where are your wounds?’ And we will say, ‘We have no wounds’ And God will ask, ‘Was nothing worth fighting for?’”
And from the brilliance of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “We who engage in nonviolent, direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure cerates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”
I try not to forget that God is as present with the one who simply stands between enemies as He is with the one firing the weapon upon another. God is in the peace and in the war. We can do all we can as an individual to live what we believe is the right way, but ultimately we can’t be guilty of the sin of hating a bigot, which would be the sin of hypocrisy.
Not that I am a saint by any means, but perhaps my prayers for the soldier and the pacifist are both honoring to God regardless of my attitude concerning the subject.
I think the discussion here can be given some perspective with the teaching of an old Rabbi who once asked his disciples how they could tell when night had ended and day had begun.
One of the students asked if it is when a person could see an animal in the distance and be able to tell whether it was a dog or a sheep. The Rabbi said, “No.’
Another asked if it was when a person could see a tree in the distance and know whether it was a fig tree or a peach tree. The rabbi said, “No.”
All of the disciples begged the rabbi to tell them the answer.
The rabbi responded, “It is when you can look on the face of any man or woman and see that it is your sister or brother. Because, if you cannot see this, it is still night.”
Sometimes we have to stop and make sure that we are walking in the light during some of these conversations.
In His dust,
Johnny
I just used the O&R on our urban missions team (Band of Survivors) this summer and taught out of it. I’m pretty sure that line was removed in later editions. PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong.
Moving on, pacifism is something God has really laid on my heart over the past few years. I grew up in your typical “‘Murricuh” home. Red white and blue, right wing yadda yadda. You get it. I find it funny that something like an anti-murder viewpoint is considered far left, liberal, hippie nonsense that will ruin our country.
As has already been stated, the largest flaw in the “defend the innocent person” scenario is the idea of defending that person’s life by taking another. In my opinion (which is based upon my understanding of the Word of God, Jesus Christ) God Himself alone has the authority to decide when a person’s life is to be given or taken. And since He has never spoken audibly to me to tell me who He would like me to kill, I will stay my hand. At least until further notice.
We have, as the West, been so brainwashed by this Utilitarian dogma that says we need to decide the greatest good for the greatest number of people (or the most important people) and do that “good.” AKA, sending troops into a foreign country and killing people we do not agree with to save the lives of other people that we do agree with. That doesn’t sound Biblical to me. ESPECIALLY when we are doing it out of “political logic” or whatever, and not the command of God Himself.
Personally, it comes down to the fact that I would never think of killing another person. I would never kill a non-believer because I would never wish to sentence a brother to an eternity without God if there is still any chance that he can be saved (it is God’s will that none would perish, after all). And then I would never kill a believer, since he is my brother! So, if I am not willing to do this myself, I would never ever think of asking someone else to do this for me.
I have some screen prints for shirts I’ve mocked up along these lines (unfortunately I haven’t ever printed them) to try and raise conversation about the phrase “pro-life” that we so liberally throw around. The idea of being “pro-life” is much more than being anti-abortion. And the idea of being “anti-abortion” is even iffy. One of the shirts has a picture of a pregnant woman, a “yields” sign, and a picture of Hitler’s face, with the phrase, “Anti-abortion?” underneath. At what point do we accept the fact that we as the Church have, for the most part, left the teachings of Jesus and started following the teachings of John Locke? At what point do we draw the line and say that taking a life is wrong? Or at what point would you say that taking a life is justified?
That preemptive strike reference is an interesting one. Because we can argue all day long that aborting little baby Hitler could have stopped the Holocaust, but if you were around to abort Hitler, you would be killing him before he had committed those crimes. Technically, before he had sinned. But that’s totally another topic. Sorry I started to drift!
Dave M.
Also, this quote from a great man should be added, I believe, to this thread:
“If Christ fights his enemies with the sword of his mouth, if he smites the earth with the rod of his mouth, and slay the wicked with the breath of his lips; and if we are to be conformed unto his image, how can we, then, fight our enemies with any other sword?” - Menno Simons
Thanks
Dave M.
I like this verse: Matthew 5:38–”You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil…”
The Bible is riddled with stories of war ‘from’ God. I love that Jesus comes along to show us a different way, a ‘you used to do this but now do this….” sort of way.
And that way of Jesus isn’t violence and it isn’t pacifism. Its a third way. (hat tip Walter Wink).
Cory H.
Some interesting and good arguments on both sides.
The problem however with the pacifist perspective is that it’s essentially based on one of two assumptions:
Assumption 1) That the world is perfect and/or everyone believes exactly the same thing without question. This can and will never happen. Even within the church, there are wildly differing theological views, and heated arguments that themselves have escalated to war in the name of God. The very fact that God created us with a free will to accept or reject various ideas for ourselves means that unless we deny the deity and supremecy of God, and everyone becomes robotic without a free will, there can never be universal peace.
Assumption 2) That everyone adopts a live and let live ideal. Noone is passionate about their ideas, and everyone accepts as equally valid the ideas and teachings of everyone else. This would mean an end to proseletysing, to evangelism etc. It means that Christians would sit down as equals with Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc., without saying that one faith is superior to any other. The moment we do assume one view/faith is superior, then we have tipped the balance into ’superior and inferior’. Foucaldian Power discourse analysis has a lot to say about that. The point is, very few Christians would be prepared to do that, and so they themselves are ensuring that peace will never become a reality.
Don’t forget, Christ himself used force - he took a bullwhip to those trading in the temple. I dare anyone who was on the receiving end of that whip to say it wasn’t forcefull. If we say that Christ’s force was a result of ‘righteous anger’, and is different to war today, then we are no different to the advocates of war - because that is exactly their rational as well.
Pacifists ideals are wonderful - and in a world operating under one of the above two assumptions are 100% correct and I would agree with them. But we do not live in a perfect world - and this side of eternity - we never will. Even Ghandi did not end violence. He extended a movement, but the violence ultimately increased (just look at the world today). Pacificm does not end violence. Martin Luther King famously said ‘all it takes for evil to flourish, is for good men to sit by and do nothing’. Pacifism, whilst idealistically wonderfull, in action has the effect of sitting by and doing nothing - regardless of the intent.
Pacifism can only be truly espoused by those who have lived through extreme violence and torture. What I am about to say is extremely controversial, but unless you have lived through extreme violence and torture on a continual basis - you have no pacificst ideals - just upper-middle class snobbery with a superiority complex. We can not know what peace is unless we know what violence is. We can not know that we will respond peacefully unless we have experienced the opposite equivalent of violence. Apart from that, there is nothing but hypocresy.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
A recent revelation on wikiLeaks (collateral murder) shows us all what’s wrong with war. The testimony of one of the soldiers involved, Ethan McCord, reveals just how the art of war is being acted out today.
As I drove to work this morning, listening to the radio, I heard talk of the high incidence of family violence in the homes of police officers. In a subculture where the use of intimidating force, and even violent force, to overwhelm and control people, should we expect anything less than domestic violence.
Graeme, your argument for the justification of war is based on a complete misunderstanding of pacifism. It’s not about ignoring injustice, or hoping everyone agrees with us, it’s about being willing to die for, rather than kill for.
I think that failing to condemn war, especially the kind of war we’re see today (based in lies and trumped up fear), while we all sit around debating the Biblical pros and cons, is simply wrong. Obviously I include myself in that condemnation.
Nuff said.
Wayne R.
“Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle” (Ps 144:1).
Jesus “said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Lk 22:36).
“For he [government] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:4).
Peace is a Christian virtue. Just War is also a Christian virtue. Take William and Bramwell’s quotes in their context. They saw the hurt caused by an imperialist power. Empire building for the sake of empire building is sin. It is not sin to invade a rogue nation to remove a heinous dictator who refused to comply with UN demands. That takes courage. Searching for murderous terrorists is an act of justice, not random aggression.
Imagine Lot being captured by the raiders and Abraham saying, “That’s too bad. I will pray for him. Perhaps I will approach the raiders and stand in their path.” You know what would follow. Remember Absolom’s coup against his father David. David loved Absolom and didn’t want a single hair harmed. When Absolom fell David wept and the troops had to steal into the city as if they had fled from battle.
Don’t condemn war or violence. Condemn senseless war and senseless violence. Some day Jesus will establish his kingdom on earth and we can beat our weapons into plowshares and prunning hooks. That day has not yet come.
“It needs but one foe to breed a war, and those who have not swords can still die upon them.” Tolkien
Jared M.
Wayne,
Whilst there is domestic violence etc. perpetrated by those who are involved in militaristic endeavours - be they soldiers, police etc., I can tell you from experience having grown up on military bases, that the level of violence perpetrated by such people is considerably less than that by civilians - clergy included.
We could legitimately argue that every war and conflict throughout history is based on trumped up fear and lies. All of the church endorsed violence (which is considerable - even within TSA) is based on fear and lies.
As for a misunderstanding of pacifism - every explaination, description etc. I have ever come across - from Ghandi to the common person - all have as an underlying assumption, one of the two assumptions I outlined previously. If you disagree - then please give me your understanding of pacifism and show me how those assumptions do not apply.
I also stand by my last comment in my previous post - unless you have experienced the horrors of war, the torture, been in a situation where your action decides whether or not one person dies (an agressor) or hundreads of thousands die - then you can not argue pacifism. If you can sleep at night knowing that because you did not intervene with violence, thousands of innocent people died - then you can argue pacifism - I will go away and vomit at the repulsiveness of your action and wail for the innocent.
I do not support war. It is horrid. It changes people beyond belief. But in this real, imperfect world, it is a reality that we must live with. Choosing not to live with it will not bring peace - just the deaths of countless people and the triumph of evil.
Graeme Randall
I’m not as sharp as y’all, and I am out numbered, but I don’t recall Jesus holding us responsible for the evils that others do. I do remember him saying something about loving our enemies.
When G.W. Bush stood up and called for the nations to rise up against Sadam and his weapons, was that Justified? As tax payers of the nations that joined him in his invasion of Iraq, are we passive participants. Are we throwing up because thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are being killed in the name of Just War? Surely Sadam was a wicked man, but we’ve simply replaced one wickedness with another.
I wonder if Sadam felt justified in his pursuit of war against Iran? Is it still called justified when someone else does it? Apparently the Americans felt he was cuz they supported him.
Why did Jesus go to the cross instead calling a legion of angels? Is it possible that love trumps force?
Wayne R
The most horrible event in the history of war was the bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Killed tens of thousands of people, including civilians. Was there any justification ?
I believe so.
The war was soon over, which saved many countries from being invaded by Japan, and saved countless innocent lives.
The OT is full of similar stories, attack the enemy and defeat them. God is on your side.
Jesus was not passive. Turning the other cheek doesn’t equate to allowing others to abuse you.
If the Salvation Army’s viewpoint is that war is evil, I don’t understand why soldiers fighting in the wars have been provided basic needs in the wars by the Salvos.
JD
John, Jesus didn’t preach passivity. Turning the other cheek was about attacking your enemy, but in a non-violent way. There are all sorts of cultural things going on in that passage that we miss—turning the other cheek was a silent way of saying ‘You can destroy my body but you cannot take my freedom.’ Carrying the soldier’s pack an extra mile would probably land the soldier in an awful lot of trouble.
I think Paul might have had something similar in mind in Romans 12 (how do we read Romans 13 as a justification for violence in the context of Romans 12? I don’t get that…) when he points out that acts of kindness are the very best ways to attack our enemies.
(Getting off topic I know, but I would suggest the nuking of Japan was more about stopping Russia—who had just finished with Germany—invading Japan than it was about stopping Japan, who were just about done in the Pacific anyway. Not only was it one of the greatest war atrocities of all time, it was also the deadliest sabre rattle in living memory.)
Cameron H.
Yes Cameron.
Perhaps we should scrap the word pacifism because it sounds too much like passivism. Let’s refer to overcoming evil with Love, Light and Truth as Peacfulism or Shalomalism.
Shalomalism is about peace, health and justice all wrapped up in one. It is about actively loving God and our neighbours. It is not about labeling whole nations as evil terrorists and crushing them under our heel. Shalomilism could be about spending $400M a day (jubilee economics) to build hospitals and schools and fresh water wells, instead of spending that on daily demonstrations of our own WMD. It’s about dying for peace rather than killing for it.
Shalom.
Wayne R.
Actually, I think this is a contextual issue. It’s possible that Jesus was warning the Jews that, unlike the success of the Maccabees, they were not going to win a war of violence against the Romans.
Paul taught that women should not speak in Church, and men should not cover their heads. I’m just not convinced that Jesus’ teaching was actually an endorsement of pacifism for all people for all time. It seems counter-productive to allow people to cut off the hands and noses of people who don’t bow to them, while those who have the power to confront such evil, even if it requires force do little more than talk.
I know that theoretically, it seems to be a great idea to simply “stand between the woman being raped and the rapist”, but realistically, I think that is a ridiculous idea. Those who claim such a gentle intervention as a way of thwarting violence are only those who live within the safety of a law enforced government as the West provides. But, if we lived in Darfur, Somalia, or even Pakistan, I doubt we would suggest such a ideological strategy.
Plus, if those who claim that pacifism works, then why aren’t they volunteering to fly over to a war-torn region and place themselves between the muzzles of those shooting at each other.
I guess, I am bothered mostly by the judgmental attitudes of those who “claim” to be pacifists, while relying on the protection of the police to keep them safe in their homes and on the streets. Though the danger still exists in many cities in the West, we still are able to go to work without the constant worry of our daughters being raped and our wives being stolen. If we really believe that pacifism is the key to peace, then why not spend as much energy on criticizing our own reliance upon law enforcement as we do blathering about soldiers who give their lives to remove the constant horror and fear of those who are being tortured, abused, and demoralized. Are we not a world of God’s images? Are we not our brother’s keeper?
Sometimes loving our neighbors and enemies may mean keeping them from our other neighbors and enemies. Frankly, Jesus did not speak to the unique resolve and perverted views of Islam; he was teaching within an empire that valued intolerance for unrest (the Pax Romana). It may be that, if Jesus would have been born in a Muslim country, he would have given us other advice, more in keeping with the commands to the Israelites who were not able to claim the Kingdom of God without removing, even by violence, the enemies of Canaan.
I don’t think that today’s violent forms of religious zealots can be conquered with the same strategy that was required to defeat the Romans in Jesus’ day. And I see no godliness in standing between my daughter and a rapist without forcing him into submission and throwing him into jail. And if he were to refuse to submit, I would not feel that letting him free to rape another is a godly decision either. Neither do I think that talking to terrorists in order to keep them from cutting off the hands of women and men or, as is happening while I write, who are going through villages, raping wives and daughters, and those who are cutting off the noses and ears of women who don’t conform to their religious dogma can be defended with pacifism.
If I am wrong, then send out the shalomists, peacafists, and pacifists, who are so sure of their convictions, to form an army of “get-in-betweens” and live their talk. The arguing is pointless, and Christians debating the issue is synonymous with what has become common among Christians, that is, we are infamous for talking, debate, and even arguing about our faith, but rarely do we practice such dangerous convictions as pacifism.
Supposing that I am wrong, then may God reveal this to me. Until then, I suppose that the political passions of those who appose my view will attempt to peacefully sway my view. I don’t mind being wrong, but I do mind being debated by ideological zealots who have never experienced any living examples of their drivel.
Jon G
I believe the early Christians made their view point on this very clear. They “overcame the world by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony and they had this testimony, they loved not their lives to the death.” Jesus said “love your enemies.” He didn’t mean that in word only. Love is more powerful than evil in the eternal picture. The blood of the maryters is the seed of the church.
We should fear not man who kills the body but God who can cast body and soul into hell. Those who fear know not the love of God. Let us love our enemies even unto our deaths. They will never forget the love we show and this may just win them to salvation. We kill them, we both lose, we lose our right standing with God by taking matters in our own hands and doing things our way. They kill us, and we show ture love in pure action, and perhaps they get the chance to repent. We must be as harmless as doves, but wise as serpents. I killed a cat as a child, and watched it die. It was heart wrenching knowing that I killed this innocent creature for no reason. How much more will the Holy Spirit convict a soul who murders innocent lives, perhaps even unto the guilty souls conversion. We must live with an eternal perspective or else all our talk about love and God and the Good News is cheap, shallow, and untrue.
Abraham G.
It doesn’t seem possible to insight violence upon our selves by attempting to be passive, and not be guilty of “causing someone to fall into sin”; even my attempt to end violence by my non-violent intervention will likely cause the perpetrator to turn on me.
Jesus told his followers to run for the hills when the war began. Why? If they could have just loved their way into stopping the violence, then they would not have needed to run. Jesus knew that their pacifism would have cost them their lives.
For the Romans, the strategy was, “Don’t fight them.” And, if and when the fight does begin, “Run”. Does it sound like Jesus is telling every person of every generation to “run” from those who are apposing each other?
Well, there is the Proverb that says, “Like one who takes a dog by the ears is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him” (26:17 NAS). Although this doesn’t prove the “get between” theory, it does support the “Run!” theory. I guess for the Marcionists, this is an “O.T. God” command that doesn’t count.
Also, I’m not convinced that Jesus is talking about God as the one who is able to destroy body and soul in hell. Yeah, I know that lots of scholars and commentators support that rendering of the text, but others also believe Jesus was actually speaking of the enemy who is seeking to destroy even their eternity, while they are worried about men who can only kill their bodies.
Do I believe that martyrdom can change the world? Yes. But does that not cause another to become a murderer, because I chose to get in the way with my “love.” And what about the one or many I was defending with my “love”, are they not then also placed on my hands for doing nothing?
I don’t think I will ever be convinced to remove the context and exegetical vorlage from these kinds of discussions. It simply puts us in positions that God does not even claim for himself. “Love me or I’ll put you in hell and kill you. But you have to just stand by and let people, even yourself, be maimed, raped, and killed by lunatics, zealots, and terrorists.”
Jesus’ words being taken out of contexts caused little girls in an Amish school to be terrorized and killed by a loony tune. Those girls trusted their families to protect them, and what did they get, pacifistically murdered.
I trust the teachings of Jesus, and know that his words mean what they say. I’m not so sure that they mean what some of you say. If you really believe in loving the evil out of the land, then stop badgering the military, and take your butts down to the local gang war, and put your rear-ends where your theory is. Then come back and leave another comment.
I really hate it that I get so passionate about this stuff, but there are far too many people who are in real danger, under actaul torture, and who are being maimed and killed, while, “in the name of Jesus”, we actually consider doing nothing but pray and stand between them. At least turn over some tables, crack a few whips, and call the psycho murderers names.
Don’t worry though. If you do decide to go out and share your love with murderers, rapists, and terrorists, you can depend on the military and law enforcement to save your hides. Either that, or Jesus will be waiting to smite you for bringing a Bible to a gun fight.
See you at Armageddon, unless God accepts contentious objectors.
J Gainey
Hey Cory.
I think that was actually my quote you used and I stand by it. I would like to address your actual question concerning pacifism and the Army. First of all, the biblical God is definitely not a pacifist. Instead of spending an hour detailing the atrocities in the OT, I just made a quick google search and this is the first website that popped up describing the unprecedented violence in the Old and New Testaments as commanded by God. http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Violence_and_God.htm
I know, I know, in the New Testament Jesus created a new covenant teaching peace, but didn’t he say that not one iota of scripture would be changed? Also, Jesus is supposed to return and destroy millions of people who may disagree with him through war, famine, plagues, etc. Not to mention he is willing to throw them into a lake of fire to be eternally tortured.
That being said, I don’t think anyone who objectively reads the Bible can adopt a biblical philosophy of pacifism. So, if you are a soldier and you agreed or signed some kind of agreement to follow the rules, then I think you should follow what your founder/leader stated, but please do not think that it is scripturally based. William Booth may have been a proponent of pacifism, but he was mistaken when he said, “This cannot be the will of God.”
John F.
Hello All, I’m late in coming to this conversation.
I see the repeated assertion by several that pacifism is some kind of ideal espoused by those in comfortable upper middle class lifestyles who are protected from violence by violent police and militaries. I can assure you from years of experience standing shoulder to shoulder with Wayne R that this is absolutely not the case.
Together we have disarmed people, stood in the way of fights that looked as if they were fast turning into race riots, learned from a close colleague - a woman no less - who was held hostage at knife point for twenty minutes and didn’t call the police afterward, stood up against police violence and intimidation in our workplace, ejected people from the building who were highly intoxicated and threatening, struggled mightily with sexual abuse, misconduct, and domestic violence, and the list could go on and on - and dealt seriously with issues around perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
In short we were dealing with precisely the kinds of issues for which people lazily feel the need to resort to violence. Our “success rate” at stopping and deescalating these situations has been and will continue to be far greater and definitely more in keeping with the way of Jesus than resorts to guns and bombs, cuffs and prisons, courts and declarations of war.
Doug J H
Just a follow up comment to make sure I get followup comments by email! I appreciate the slow burn nature of this conversation. Too many web based discussions flash burn then disappear!
Doug D H
Jon, there is no question which side of this spectrum forms your thinking. Your arguments have a subtle, yet violent, undertone. Statements like, … I do mind being debated by ideological zealots who have never experienced any living examples of their drivel. This demonstrates a use of force that isn’t consistent with a testimony of love.
You also question the validity of any argument that is not tested and or practiced, and yet there are too few JustWar types lobbying Washington because of the clearly unjustified war practices of the last 30+ years.
I believe that this forum should be a safe place to work through these matters without having to conquer each other. It is clear that you have something to offer and share, and so much to learn.
I am intimidated buy many of the writers in this forum, but it is a mistake for me to believe that I have nothing to offer. I am not an academic or an apologist but I am able to see that so much of the trouble we face today stems from the fact that the Church has subtly embraced the Kingdom of the World. How is it that much of the Church rises up against abortion and remains so silent when it comes to the unjust destruction and murder being perpetrated by our armed forces? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting one is better than the other. My point is that we need to examine our foundations.
For a very long time I was a Just War type. I had an uncle who was a radio operator in a Sherman tank. He was left behind enemy lines, and presumed dead, in the battle of the bridges. I believed that the good guys stopped the bad guys. History proves that. I believed that then and I still struggle with it. I live and work, on or near the streets where violence rules. The currency of the street is cash, drugs, sex and violence. I spend my days teaching and demonstrating peaceful resolution of conflict. I believe that Jesus went to the cross to stand between me and Hell. I believe he calls me to stand (peacefully) between the conflicts that I encounter. Often as I do, I have a very strong urge to beat some respect into the ignorant #@%&s. How often? Everyday.
Shalom
Wayne Rumsby
So far, I have left two comments that are less than friendly, only to see that there are no examples of “stand-betweeners”. Instead, the claims of pacifism and silent defense of love are replaced by “defenders” of their points.
I hope I’ve made my point.
Peace.
JPG
Jesus.
JPG, I will take the time to respond in as friendly and patient and intelligent of a way as I am capable to your two long, thoughtful yet passionate posts.
It may be a week or so before I can do it, but I will do it. It took a very, very long and copiously worded process with one particular individual for me to move from wanting very seriously to blow stuff up in the name of Jesus to a position of Christian pacifism and peacemaking. It’s the least I can do.
DJH
Hostility breeds hostitlity. Please do not forget Ephesians 6:12. Is there any way that we can recognize the desires to see what is best in one another rather than listen with the sole intention of responding in kind to hostility?
Please do not hurt one another in the attempt to defend peace in the name of Jesus. I am more than prepared to be a target of your agression, if it will redirect your anger toward one another and prevent the emotional pain and anxiety that drives a wedge between each of you who are caught up in this war of words.
May the peace of God fall upon each of you.
JPG
I think it’s very interesting, the views on both “pacifism” and “Just War” that have been presented. I think the most important thing to do in a thread like this is qualify the main terms being used, and so far it looks like attempts have been made by both sides to clarify these words, and yet the opposing sides refuse to acknowledge them. Just a bit silly from where I’m sitting. Which is the floor of my bedroom, if you were wondering.
I probably won’t post any more after this unless there is a need, but the problems with both sides have already been addressed in lengthy posts. So, in defense of pacifism- or anti-murder, here is my point:
The idea of anti-war/anti-murder pacifism is not unbiblical, leftist, hippie hogwash as some would have us think. Jesus executed His famous whip making, yes. For what purpose? To sanctify the temple. OK. Did He kill anyone with the whip? No. OK.
God in the Old Testament: did he kill people? Yes. Did He have Israel destroy entire nations? Yes. Was God speaking in an audible voice to the leader of the people or Judge or prophet who could listen and know beyond a shadow of a doubt what God required? OH YEAH. Does this happen today? Ever? In any country? I would say no.
My point is, as a Church, we can no base our belief in the Just War theory on the conditions that were met in the Old Testament because, frankly, they aren’t met any more. There is no such thing as a Diocracy. And, thus, I have a problem with anyone taking the life of another human in the name of justice, peace, what have you. If God decides to do it, fine. But I will not, and I will not ask any other man to when there is a better way.
AGAIN, this is not to say that we, as individuals, sit back and do nothing. Just like Doug was talking about, it is an active mission to *end injustice by practicing justice.* How’s that for some Kingdom Values?
Beloved, please do not think of pacifism as weakness or laziness. It must be active and alive in order to work. It must be an active choice- a conscious thought to chose to engage an enemy in much more meaningful ways than attempting to take their life. Sometimes force is needed, I get that. If a little girl was being raped in an ally and I passed by, I would forcibly remove that guy, you know? But I would also need to be willing to die for that rapist if someone else walked up to shoot him. Jesus died for him, too. Why should I be afraid to do the same?
Dave M.
As long as war is profitable it will never disappear. Using violence to settle differences is hard wired into us just like it is every other animal. I will fight for liberty, I will fight for freedom and I will fight against any who would take these things from me. Unfortunatly our government is one of the enemies of both. War is not always justified but neither is standing aside and letting the enemy roll over you. There is my opinion on war. My opinion on your queries is this.
If you are going to claim to believe in something then you better have a damned good idea what it is you beleive. Using a highlighter to section off what you choose to follow from the literature you base your beliefs on is intellectually lazy, spiritually insubordinate and shows shifty morality at best.
Ash
How can you possibly show up after my pacifistic comment? I thought pacifism would stop this debate. Wow. I think I’ll go back to reality.
Pacifism gives rise to slavery; slavery gives rise to abuse; and abuse gives rise to retaliation. I think there is very good reason to believe that the worldviews shared here are obviously different, and both have value.
I think that pacifism can show love to violent people. And I think that using force to protect one’s self and others from violence is also beneficial.
For me, I choose to do more than just stand between the rapist and the one being raped. And I think that God honors my form of protection, just as readily as he honors the intentions of the pacifist who attempts to protect her with his or her kind words. I also think that my form of active-pacifism (doing what is necessary to protect others from being victimized, and provide some form of deterrent from future violence) is probably a little more effective in these days of blatant disregard for and disrespect of communal rights, and authority.
We aren’t defending ourselves against first century Romans who insist upon non-violence, and value diversity; we are defending ourselves and others against people who have no tolerance for speeches and hugs, and actually thirst for the end of everyone but themselves.
You pray. I’ll fight!
JPG
It’s interesting how many perspectives of pacifism are being debated here. Are we talking about Absolute deontoligical or consequential pacifism or Conditional deontological or consequential pacifism? Or the subcategories? At the end of the day this debate will never have a winner because all of these are personal philosophies. I think this and you think that.
I do find it interesting that the founders of The Salvation Army apparently (from the above quotes) had some strong feelings about the atrocities of war and violence, yet they chose to use that exact model to construct their organization. The military uniforms, firing cartridges, a lot of the songs, etc. share the symbolic language of war. It’s even in your name! If I was vehemently opposed to football, I wouldn’t start an organization that called it’s members lineman and quarterbacks with policies called the rule book and penalties. I realize your in a salvation war, but just sayin…
John F.
There is a lot of hostility in your comments. That makes me sad.
I will pray that you do not have to fight.
- Dave M