| Pacifism Again... |
| Sigh...
That's what I'll go with at the moment... Now I'll explain. Today at dinner, we were talking. Being us, talk about war and such came up. Well, my Neighbor started telling a story about when he worked at a Brethren Camp this past summer, and there was a speaker about how we should end sanctions against Iraq because they are killing children and such. While this may (I'm not certain) be true, I would say that the bigger problem is that they do our economy harm without carrying out the purpose that they were enacted for. Saddam is still in power after however many years of sanctions. Any way, my Neighbor scoffed at the idea. Personally, I don't really have a problem with it... I always have a problem trying to attach a super-moralistic view to policy. What did bother me though was the conversation that followed... Various people spouted about how Jesus "came not to bring peace, but a sword" and such... So, I'm writing this to defend my position. First, I'll define it: I am not (repeat, NOT) a "pure" pacifist by any means. Personally, I'm leaning more and more toward attacking Iraq. But, I do believe that we, as Christians, should not act in violence, and that, in fact, acting violently is not Christian at all. In short, if we are to justify governmental (or any)violence, it cannot be on Christian grounds. The argument is simple. First, we will assume the authority of Scripture, as should be universal amongst Christians. Therefore, the plain text of Scripture does, itself provide sufficient proof for any point. So, let's look at Scripture: Matt. 26: 52: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Here Christ clearly condemns his disciple Peter for rising to his defense. Many may claim that this was because Christ had to be crucified so that we may be forgiven. While this is true, it is not the reason Jesus gives for his condemnation. His reason is "all who draw the sword will die by the sword." As many pacifists claim, waging of war comes back to bite the person who wages it. John 18:36: Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews." Why didn't Jesus tolerate the disciples fighting to prevent his arrest? Because the prophecies needed to be fulfilled, right? That's not what Jesus says... His reason "My kingdom is not of this world." So, is his kingdom still not of this world? I'd say so. (Feel free to compose an argument stating otherwise.) So, the reason for not fighting is still there. Matt 5:39: "I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." I have heard an interesting argument about slapping cheeks in Jesus day and such... It basically claims that by turning the other cheek, you force the aggressor to face you as an equal. However, this completely ignores the first part of the verse, which requires no cultural context... "Do not resist an evil person." God has given us a command: do not resist an evil person. What does that mean for us as Christians? Simply, do not resist an evil person. Of course, there is always the caveat: unless they are trying to make you disobey the direct command of God. I believe this will suffice as an argument. So, now let's look at some objections from Scripture: "But Christ says 'I come not to bring peace but a sword' (Matt 10:34), therefore war is clearly Christian." I admit to making that statement a little stronger than it ought to be. But, I will argue against the softer form of "may be" rather than "is clearly". This argument commits the error of prooftexting. It does not take into account the context of the passage. The context makes it clear that Christ's goal is not harmony between men, but rather collecting the faithful unto himself. Indeed, following Christ may cause conflict. Secular parents may feel slighted by a child who devotes his life to Christ. Conflict may come from this. That, simply, is his point, as can be seen from the verses that follow the quoted one. "But at the Lord's Supper Christ told the disciples, 'If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.' (Luke 22:36) Surely this justifies war in some cases." Once again, prooftexting. What is the reason Christ gives for this command? Is it "for you must be prepared to defend yourself against those that would martyr you"? Not at all. Rather it is, "It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me." This is further evidenced by the fact that when the disciples showed Christ two swords he declared them to be "enough." Enough for what? Surely, 12 disciples fighting with two swords would not be very effective. But, it would be sufficient to number Christ among the transgressors, which is the reason he gave for them getting a sword in the first place. "But Paul says of the government: 'he does not bear the sword in vain' (Romans 13: 4)" True enough. Paul does say that of the government. But, does he ever suggest that Christians should desire to be that government? I don't see that anywhere in the Bible at all. The only model that God gives for government is the Israelite theocracy where God rules through his Law and the prophets. And, when the Israelites seek to exercise "self-determination" and set up a monarchy, God condemns them and also warns them of the problems that will exist under it. And, indeed, every monarch over both kingdoms (Judah and Israel) have at least something negative noted about them. In fact, only two major Biblical figures escape condemnation: Jesus (obviously) and the prophet Daniel. That's it. Even though David was called a man after God's own heart, his flaws were sure to be pointed out and highlighted. Scriptures do not look upon human governments kindly. So, this being the case, what's up with the Romans verse? Simple. The New Testament tells us as Christians how to deal with the world, ourselves, and God. The Romans section tells us one way of how to deal with government: obedience. (Paul also tells us to pray for them in 1 Tim. 2:1-3) Paul never suggests that we try to attain political power to change the governing authority. He never even suggests that we (as Christians) resist unjust regimes. For over 300 years, Christians were persecuted and martyred because they disobeyed the government in the only area where it was allowed: to obey God's command. Some were martyred because they refused to worship various idols. And some, interestingly enough, we martyred because they refused to fight for the Empire. "I am a Christian, and cannot fight." Not until Constantine and the idea of a Christian government arose did Christians even consider violence. One need only look at how "Christians" used governmental violence to see that it does not have a good track record. The Crusades, The Inquisition, Witch Trials, burning of other heretics... All in the "name of Christianity". I'll leave it to you to judge whether Christian states have really succeeded at being Christian at all. My plea: if you want to believe in fighting a war, fine. In fact, I might even be with you in some cases. But, think long and hard before trying to justify it from a Christian perspective. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." Gal. 5:22 |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |