Pacifism, War and Violence

[stevekimes]

Okay, let's get into it.

Full disclosure: I am a Christian pacifist. And I became a Mennonite because of my understanding of Scripture. So I'm fully committed to this.

However, I used to be of the just war theory, and am willing to discuss the theological and Scriptural details of this.

My full position is too long to present as a whole, so how about if I just give some passages for us to work off of, and then I give a couple conclusions?

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
(Mat 5:43-45)

So those who persecute us, according to Jesus-- meaning those who humiliate or do violence to us-- we are not to respond to in kind. Instead, we are to love them. To love someone is the opposite of harming or killing them (Mark 3:4). Those who do harm to us, we must do good in response, because that is God's response to those who do evil to Him.

Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Rom 12:17-21)

Again, a persecution context, especially a government that persecutes us (along with Rom 13). Returning violence to violence is not a Christian response, for we are to respond with peace and generosity. To enact any kind of violence, even equitable violence in return is to enact evil, which followers of Jesus should not partake in.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12)

Simply put, we are to commit warfare-- but in the heavenly places, not against other flesh and blood humans. This goes along with II Cor. 10:4, which talks about our weapons not being of earth, but spiritual.

In conclusion, it is a particular stance of the believer in Jesus not to participate in violence with the intent to harm against another. Others might-- perhaps even should-- fight against another, but followers of Jesus must not. Instead, we rely on God's power alone to enact violence when necessary. Even so, we do not pray for violence to be done against those who violently oppose us, but instead offer blessings for them. In this way, we are in no ways acting in an "evil" way, but from God's mercy and love, which we represent on earth.

I figure that whoever is reading this probably has counter-verses, questions or ponderings. While I would ask that personal remarks not be hurled (I have been called "Satan" because of my beliefs in this matter), I can handle any Scriptural or theological opposition. I've probably seen it before.

[Josh]

Thanks for starting this. I know it's a big topic and it might as well unfold bit by bit... makes for more interesting conversation.

I too have thought quite a bit on the subject. I actually left the denomination I grew up in partly because I couldn't commit to the pacifist position I was told I would have needed to hold if I was going to be a minister there.

I hope you don't mind if I seem to be turning over very small stones here, but I think these stones are ultimately very important.

So those who persecute us, according to Jesus-- meaning those who humiliate or do violence to us-- we are not to respond to in kind. Instead, we are to love them. To love someone is the opposite of harming or killing them (Mark 3:4). Those who do harm to us, we must do good in response, because that is God's response to those who do evil to Him.

I don't think that "to love someone" always equates to "the opposite of.... killing them". After all, God has killed people yet He has always loved everyone. So the two must not be mutually exclusive.

Likewise, in the Torah the Jews were told to "love their neighbor as themselves" (Leviticus 19:17-18) and to even show love to their enemies (Exodus 23:4-5) yet that same law also gave instructions for putting certain offenders to death.

Though in human experience killing and love are usually not synonymous, I don't think they are absolutely incompatible.


As to Jesus' advice in general, of course the big debate is what context was he intending his advice be read in: should we never retaliate or resist evil in any context or instance? Or is he speaking of in our personal lives/ or as a church? Is there a delineation between what a governmental officer does and what an individual does? Paul seems to have thought so when he specifically says that God has given the state "the power of the sword" (Romans 13) What if that government agent is a Christian?

If the only way to protect someone is to physically resist an evil person, is it then the "higher good"?

Of course you've heard these questions before.

I'd like to highlight my two biggest beefs with "5 point pacifism":

If violence is inherently evil (as in morally culpable, not just a negative result of the fall, which is a BIG difference), then how are we to explain the righteous acts of violence described in the Old Testament, especially God's own commands that His people do violent things at times?

Those who hold that violence is inherently wicked are forced to sell the farm (the canon of Scripture) to buy the cow (maintaining a simplistic view of violence).

I don't know if you hold that violence is inherently evil or not, but I know those who do and I consider it unworkable.

Secondly, full pacifists often rob Paul to pay Jesus by explaining away or, worse, dismissing what Paul says in Romans 13, for example, as inferior to what Jesus says in the gospels. This is problematic for numerous reasons- it's to me a troubling view of the inspiration of Scripture and also an illogical one considering that everything we have written in the New Testament is written through the lens of a human follower of Jesus. The gospels are not necessarily any more "sacred" or "higher" than Paul's books- both claim to represent God's will and purpose communicated to man by man. And the same writers of the gospels are also the ones who tell us without any hint of disagreement John the Baptist's advice to soldiers, not that they not carry a weapon but that they not extort people (Luke 3:14)

If we pull Jesus' words about non-violence out of context we might forget that He grew up as a Jew, with all the same heroes of the faith that other Jews did, like David, the man with blood stained hands. Never once does he repudiate what came before. Jesus doesn't even deny the Sanhedrin the intrinsic authority to consider the death penalty for Him! (John 19:11)

We must face up to the fact that we are given some paradoxical information about violence/ resistance in Scripture and work from the angle of the tension between love and justice instead of requiring simple solutions.

[stevekimes]

I'm glad you agree that we should unfold this gradually. Eventually this comes to effect a huge part of the Scripture, as you have already shown.

I think you made three main points, which I will take one by one.

1. Killing and loving. I am saying that Jesus himself makes the point that killing and loving are opposites. In the passage I referred to, Mark 3:4, Jesus uses an antithetical parallelism to explain about the Sabbath. He says, ""Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?" So what is "legal" on the Sabbath, Jesus implies is doing good/saving a life. What is "illegal" is to "do harm" or "to kill". Since in Jesus' definition of "love your enemy" includes to "do good" (Luke 6:35), that would mean that "to kill" would be the opposite of that. While under the Mosaic Law, "love" was more loose, Jesus tightens it down strictly. More about that in a bit.

2. While I am a pacifist, I am an Anabaptist pacifist, which means a biblical pacifist. I am much more concerned with being biblical than being a pacifist.

In that, I have to say, Biblically, that violence is not a wrong in and of itself. I do not say this from examples in the OT, because those examples are, at best, tainted. Yes, David did violence, but he was also denied the building of the temple because he was "a man of bloodshed". The Israelites were commanded to go to war at times, including committing genocide, but this grew less as revelation progressed.

The main reason I say that violence is not a wrong in and of itself is because God uses violence and it is never wrong for Him. Of course, He has the right to harm any human, because He created them all, but it means that violence has the possibility of being done for the right reasons.

The issue is: when is it right to do violence? We have generally agreed that it is correct for a surgeon to do violence to his patient (cutting them up is certainly violent) because it is in the best interest of the patient. Most people believe that it is right for a parent to do a low level of violence to their child for the child's own benefit.

Violence causes more harm that it solves, however, and it must be strictly limited.

3. Romans 13. Paul clearly says that governments have the right to use violence, to harm or even kill others for the benefit of their citizens as a whole. No question there.

But Paul is certainly not including Christians in his definition, there. First of all, he just wrote that Christians were to respond to evil with good. Secondly, in his context the government was persecuting Christians (Romans was written either during the reign of Claudius or Nero-- both of whom persecuted Christians, especially Nero). Paul was not giving any licence for Christians to act as a government.

Anabaptists explain this by a "two kingdom theology". In other words, God has granted human governments to be run in a retribution model, which is what Paul is describing-- eye for eye, harm for crime, reward for good. But the Christian kingdom is based on a non-retribution model-- love for enemies, forgiveness for repentance, do good to all, mercy instead of judgment.

This radically merciful kingdom is a benefit to people at large, both because we offer the opportunity for forgiveness, but it gives us a stronger position in spiritual warfare, which is even more necessary than physical warfare. We are a kingdom of priests, not acting violently for any reason, but receiving violence for spiritual power.

For this reason, Anabaptists have historically not been anti-war, but opposed to Christian participation in war. In other words, allow others to participate in war without throwing guilt at them, but we who follow Jesus will abstain from physical war and instead focus on spiritual warfare.

[Josh]

Regarding Mark 3:4, I don't think Jesus is trying to make an overt point about pacifism that can be taken as a truism in every sense. But in general it reveals God's will that good be done, which usually does not include physical harm.

I am much more concerned with being biblical than being a pacifist.

That's refreshing. I'm sure we could quibble about what is or isn't God-sanctioned violence in the OT, but this is enough for now for me to understand where you're coming from.

The issue is: when is it right to do violence? We have generally agreed that it is correct for a surgeon to do violence to his patient (cutting them up is certainly violent) because it is in the best interest of the patient. Most people believe that it is right for a parent to do a low level of violence to their child for the child's own benefit.
Violence causes more harm that it solves, however, and it must be strictly limited.

Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your conclusion statement? Didn't you just prove that violence doesn't always cause more harm than it solves? I think we agree that it's a question of what kind of violence, for what reasons, how much, etc.. So, did you mean that "violence often (or even usually) causes more harm than good?" I could agree with that.

But Paul is certainly not including Christians in his definition, there. First of all, he just wrote that Christians were to respond to evil with good. Secondly, in his context the government was persecuting Christians (Romans was written either during the reign of Claudius or Nero-- both of whom persecuted Christians, especially Nero). Paul was not giving any licence for Christians to act as a government.

Anabaptists explain this by a "two kingdom theology". In other words, God has granted human governments to be run in a retribution model, which is what Paul is describing-- eye for eye, harm for crime, reward for good. But the Christian kingdom is based on a non-retribution model-- love for enemies, forgiveness for repentance, do good to all, mercy instead of judgment.

This radically merciful kingdom is a benefit to people at large, both because we offer the opportunity for forgiveness, but it gives us a stronger position in spiritual warfare, which is even more necessary than physical warfare. We are a kingdom of priests, not acting violently for any reason, but receiving violence for spiritual power.

For this reason, Anabaptists have historically not been anti-war, but opposed to Christian participation in war. In other words, allow others to participate in war without throwing guilt at them, but we who follow Jesus will abstain from physical war and instead focus on spiritual warfare.

Having grown up anabaptist as well, I'm familiar with this way of looking at it. I agree with your basic definition of the difference between these two kingdoms and how they are to be characterized. I agree that the kingdom of God is to be expressed with non-violence and loving your enemies.

But what the New Testament doesn't really speak to much is the situation where a member of the Kingdom of God is also an office-holder in the kingdoms of men.

The reason for this is clear- Jesus and the disciples taught their radical and amazing kingdom ethic to an audience that was almost completely excluded from participation in government. They didn't have to address the question of the Christian who straddles both "kingdoms".

Actually, I think that is exactly what John the Baptist was addressing in Luke 3:14:

Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay."

Here we have a rare example of Christian (or proto-Christian) wisdom applied to the "power brokers of the kingdom of men" who were also responding to the gospel. And the advice wasn't "quit your day job"- it was "learn how to do your job righteously".
Likewise, Cornelius the centurion isn't asked to cease being a centurion as far as we can tell.

But for the most part, the early Christians didn't even have to think about the dilemma of a believer living squarely as a decision-maker in both "kingdoms" (let alone imagine what it would be like to be a Christian in a democracy).


The anabaptist would like (often demands) that every cop who becomes a Christian to cease being a cop. But I think it's possible for a Christian to live in both realms, though difficult.

[stevekimes]

I think we are in agreement as to where are differences lie.

My statement would be better qualified "In general, violence does more harm than good" In other words, that is the basic rule of violence, although exceptions remain.

I think that J the B's statement is significant in that it is proto-Christian. He is speaking a message of repentance, not a full message of God's kingdom.

Jesus did ask people to give up their day jobs, just not everyone. Matthew the toll collector gave up his day job. Not that his job was bad, but he had a higher calling.

I think that it is possible (although sometimes difficult) to be a police officer and an anabaptist. Many cops are peace officers, peace makers, not enforcers. I think that type of policing is more effective.

However, it is impossible to participate in the military and uphold this ideal. I firmly believe that to participate in the U.S. modern military is to deny Jesus' teaching to "love your enemy". The same as to be president (although Jimmy Carter tried his best) and many other aspects of the government. I think there is no separation between what we do as followers of Jesus and what we do in our occupation.

[Josh]

I think that J the B's statement is significant in that it is proto-Christian. He is speaking a message of repentance, not a full message of God's kingdom.

But I think it's clear that Luke included the story because of his Roman audience, granting his assent to John's judgment on the matter that Christians could serve in governmental roles- that there was no automatic reason why a person couldn't work for the state and still serve a higher master.

[stevekimes]

"No man can serve two masters, either he will love the one and hate the other or he will hate the one and serve the other."

Of course, Jesus spoke this about wealth, but the same holds with governmental service. In the end, we have to make choices. Why put oneself in the choice of rebellion against a master whom you've dedicated yourself to serve? Paul said, "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." (1Co 7:23).

The basic principle in the NT is to work out Jesus Lordship in the place you were when you were called. If you became a Christian as a soldier (and soldiers in those days had serious vows to take), then try to work it out. But, Paul said, we should seek to have as much freedom as possible, for that gives us more opportunity to use our freedom for Jesus (I Cor. 7:20-24).

Governmental rule and Jesus' rule conflict. Some governmental rule and Jesus' rule might work in cooperation. Other kinds of rule are in clear conflict. If you are told by the government that they are to tell you who to kill and you must obey without thinking, that is direct opposition to Jesus. One should never choose to put oneself in that kind of a position. If one is at the dictates of a constituency, instead of the direction of Jesus, that is a conflict.

We should never choose anything that puts the Lordship of Jesus over our lives in jeopardy.

[Josh]

"No man can serve two masters, either he will love the one and hate the other or he will hate the one and serve the other."Of course, Jesus spoke this about wealth, but the same holds with governmental service. In the end, we have to make choices. Why put oneself in the choice of rebellion against a master whom you've dedicated yourself to serve? Paul said, "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." (1Co 7:23).

Jesus means that no man can have more than one Ultimate master. Jesus isn't saying, for instance, that a child shouldn't obey the authority of their parents, unless that authority contradicts His authority.

Is it "putting oneself in rebellion" for a child to submit to their parents in general?

Governmental rule and Jesus' rule conflict. Some governmental rule and Jesus' rule might work in cooperation. Other kinds of rule are in clear conflict. If you are told by the government that they are to tell you who to kill and you must obey without thinking, that is direct opposition to Jesus. One should never choose to put oneself in that kind of a position. If one is at the dictates of a constituency, instead of the direction of Jesus, that is a conflict.

If you're a Christian police officer and you are asked to kill to protect a life/ stop wrongdoing, then that is not against God's will. If you are asked to kill the innocent, then it's wrong and you must resist that authority.

Are there gray areas in between? Absolutely. I wouldn't pretend that it would be an easy job. It's not one I would want to have.

But actually, I think it's easier to be a Christian police officer than a Christian politician

[stevekimes]

Of course, I said above that it is possible to be a Christian police officer, but I think a Christian president is an oxymoron. While I might be more extreme, we're pretty close here.

I think we're ready to discuss the next issue, and the major disagreement. Is it ever moral to kill another person?

Let me begin with my caveats, which I already mentioned above:
1. God can morally kill anyone He wants. God is the creator and the giver of life and He can take that life away.

2. Governments have the right to kill people when they have done evil.

So when I speak as to the morality of killing people, I am speaking about whether a follower of Jesus can do this in full obedience.

In the context of having wrong being done to them, Jesus commands "love your enemy." He didn't say "love your enemy unless it's your job to hate them". In fact, he said, "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy', but I say to you Love your enemy."

In his explanation in Luke 6 he says that we are to respond to one's enemy by doing good to them, by being merciful to them. In what possible way could killing a person be "doing good" to them or "being merciful" to them?

The argument may be made that someone might protect another by killing a bad guy. Thus, the bad guy isn't one's direct "enemy" but is the enemy of another, whom you are protecting. This is to misunderstand Jesus' argument. John Piper's dissertation (yes, THAT John Piper) is on Jesus' command to love one's enemies. In that book, he argues (accurately) that Jesus is not only speaking about one's enemies. Rather he is taking an extreme example to show how it applies universally. In other words, Jesus says that since we are to love the most difficult people to love, our enemies, then we need to love unconditionally-- all people at all times. This makes sense with Jesus' statement which is translated differently "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" or "Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful." The point is, the Father loves everyone without exception. Everyone receives life from His hand, and the very worst criminals are allowed to stay alive. God gives everyone, without exception, food. If God so loves the very worst people in the world, so should we.

The point Jesus is making is the same as the parable of the Good Samaritan: We should never limit our love to any person by putting them in any kind of a category. If they are a human being, that is sufficient cause to love them.

While I can see certain contexts in which to be violent could be loving, to kill a fellow human being is not loving. It is our responsibility, as Jesus' followers, to love all people, without exception. If we look at a person differently in order to excuse our doing harm or killing them, then we are simply ignoring Jesus' command.

[Josh]

In the context of having wrong being done to them, Jesus commands "love your enemy." He didn't say "love your enemy unless it's your job to hate them". In fact, he said, "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy', but I say to you Love your enemy."

I don't have time for a full response, but... is it really fair to say that, for example, a policeman's job is to "hate their enemies"? I don't even think a solider needs to hate their enemies.

[stevekimes]

Love and hate in the gospel is not mostly attitude, but action. One "loves" by "doing good". One "hates" by doing evil. Certainly killing is one of the greatest evil one human can do to another. We can hate people we don't know or care about. In fact, apathy is one of the greatest forms of hatred.

And one way or another, we are not called to "not hate" but to love. We are supposed to act positively to all people. Killing is not a part of love, no matter how you look at it. Unless you think that mercy killing is love, but that's not what soldiers do.

Police officers have no demand to kill, by the way. It is sad-- nay, a horror-- when they kill so frequently.

[Josh]

I feel like I'm re-treading ground here, but God Himself demonstrates that it's not impossible to both kill someone and truly love them, if love is defined as doing the very best thing for a person. There are some things worse than death- like being allowed to continue down a path to even more radical evil against others. The fact that God commands the jews in the OT to love their fellow man but also stipulates situations in which they must use the death penalty demonstrates this.

And even in the New Covenant, I believe that, for instance, Bonhoeffer could simultaneously love Hitler and plot his assassination.

[stevekimes]

This is where Jesus statement in Mark 4 comes in. To "kill" is aligned with to "do harm", the opposite of "to do good". I am not saying that Jesus is making a moral statement about all killing there. But he is putting killing on the same side of harm, and good on the opposite side, which he places in Luke 6 with "love".

There are different kinds of love. You can generally love someone in the abstract. But when Jesus said "love your enemies" his examples are clear that he isn't talking about the abstract. He is talking about enacting good to one who has acted evilly to you. You cannot both kill (or plan to kill) and enact good for a person.

To kill is to enact the ultimate judgment, which is in God's hands alone. For this reason Paul quoted "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord". Vengeance-- doing harm to another for harm they did to us or others-- Paul calls an evil. And we are to not respond to evil with evil, but we are to respond with good.

I just don't understand how you can't see this. You seem to be defining love in a different way than Jesus did.

[Josh]

This is where Jesus statement in Mark 4 comes in. To "kill" is aligned with to "do harm", the opposite of "to do good". I am not saying that Jesus is making a moral statement about all killing there. But he is putting killing on the same side of harm, and good on the opposite side, which he places in Luke 6 with "love".

To kill does involve harm, which is usually evil. But we cannot make an absolute out of "harm is the opposite of good", because it depends on the definition of harm. Sometimes something painful must be done out of love. A spanking can be a loving act, although technically it does harm. God Himself, as we have already seen, has sometimes harmed people to the point of death, out of his loving kindness.


So I can't agree that this statement in ALWAYS true:

[Jesus] is talking about enacting good to one who has acted evilly to you. You cannot both kill (or plan to kill) and enact good for a person.

Let's go back to ancient Israel for a moment- do you think it was theoretically possible for the children of Israel to both love Aachan and stone him at the same time?

To kill is to enact the ultimate judgment, which is in God's hands alone.

It is not in "God's hands alone", as we can see from the fact that in the OT God set up a legal system which involved capital punishment, and in the NT where God sets up governments who are then given that right.

For this reason Paul quoted "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord". Vengeance-- doing harm to another for harm they did to us or others-- Paul calls an evil. And we are to not respond to evil with evil, but we are to respond with good.

Paul must separate vengeance from justice in his mind, because he is alright with the legal authorities enacting justice. It is the personal aspect of vengeance and with it the inability to forgive that Paul must be condemning.

I don't think I'm defining love differently than Jesus did. But the state's primary job is to effect justice, not show love. A state cannot show love anyway, by virtue of the fact that it is not a person. A Christian is to love everyone, but when a Christian is also a part of the state, he must carefully walk the line between love and justice in a way that, thankfully, most of us don't have to.

[robin]

For me it is not too hard to imagine a case where a Christian is choosing to do the most loving thing by acting out in violence. In most cases those who chose to do evil will pray upon those who are most vulnerable, and as Christians we must be prepared to do the loving thing for the victim by protecting them, even by using deadly force when necessary.

Personally I consider this desire in us to protect the innocent to be part of our better nature, and we should look at how to best use it, instead of denying it.

[stevekimes]

I don't have time to respond to Josh's longer post right now, but just quickly I'd like to respond to robin.

First of all, I agree that violence is sometimes necessary to love. However, to cause irreparable harm, such as killing, is not. Irreparable harm and love are opposites.

Also, it is an error to think that violence is the best way to protect the innocent. In fact, the use of violence often limits us from thinking of better, more effective ways to protect the innocent. I spend a lot of time training the homeless to use peacemaking skills against the violent in order to protect all. In using these skills, we bring peace to the entire community, instead of perpetuating a cycle of violence that grows and consumes communities.

Again, I am not denying the use of violence in extreme situation. I am saying that Jesus is calling us to love and to bring peace without violent means because we have a higher calling than the world.

[robin]

Also, it is an error to think that violence is the best way to protect the innocent.

I never said it was the best way, but it may be the only way in some circumstances.

In fact, the use of violence often limits us from thinking of better, more effective ways to protect the innocent. I spend a lot of time training the homeless to use peacemaking skills against the violent in order to protect all. In using these skills, we bring peace to the entire community, instead of perpetuating a cycle of violence that grows and consumes communities.

I have no doubt that violence can likely be avoided given enough time and if you are dealing with a rational person, but as you know many people who intend on killing or committing other kinds of evil are not rational. Also, in some cases you may not have an opportunity to evaluate and explore all non violent options before committing yourself to a plan of action. To do so may endanger the lives of innocent people.

Again, I am not denying the use of violence in extreme situation. I am saying that Jesus is calling us to love and to bring peace without violent means because we have a higher calling than the world.

If our calling does not allow us to protect the innocent when deadly force is necessary is our calling really higher? Are we not just a bunch of self righteous Christians standing around lecturing people about non-violence while innocent people are made the victims? That doesn't sound very loving to me.