Statement on being a Pacifist

[Lance Schmitz]

I received this today. Very interesting and a quick read.

peace and grace,
lance

A Christian Pacifist

By Lloyd Lee Wilson

I am a Christian pacifist. For 300 years following the resurrection of Jesus that would have been a redundant statement: it was understood that all Christians were pacifists. We know that some Christians even allowed themselves to be killed rather than join the Roman army. But that belief is rare today.

Becoming a Christian is not an intellectual declaration, but a transformational experience. In that transformation Christ breaks the shell and the bonds of our old life, and gives us each a new life, with a new spirit and a new heart; a new desire to do God's will and a new strength to do it.

It is the shared experience of the Religious Society of Friends, that as the transformation progresses, one discovers the guidance and companionship of Christ within. Christ's "Behold, I am with you always" has become literally true. When we examine ourselves in this new life, we discover that among many other blessings, we are now living in that life and power that takes away the occasion of war—all the reasons and excuses for fighting other human beings have fallen away.

As a Christian, there are at least four reasons why I "utterly den" all wars and preparation for war and fighting with outward weapons.

1. Lusts. We usually think of lust as involving intense sexual cravings, but when the Epistle of James tells us that wars come from lusts (James 4:1), a broader meaning is intended. Lust is the intense desire for those things that I do not have and which it would be wrong for me to possess. As a Christian I've been redeemed from my bondage to the lusts, in all their multiple forms. The freedom Christ gives me from the covetousness of my old life frees me from the urge to fight to fulfill those desires. There is no longer an occasion, or reason, for me to make war.

2. An explicit command—Christ my King has by command (Matthew 26) and example disarmed me. Peter attempted to defend Christ by violence, cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest. What better justification could there be for fighting: the defense of the perfectly innocent and defenseless against a violent enemy with evil intent? But Christ said to Peter, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." When Christ disarmed Peter he disarmed all Christians.

3. War is counterproductive. As a Christian, I yearn for and work for the coming of the Kingdom of God; but the Kingdom will come not by might or the power of the outward sword, but by the spirit of God (Zechariah 4:6). I can't hurry the kingdom by waging war. It is impossible to "fight for peace." The cessation of outward fighting at the end of any war already contains seeds for the next war.

4. Transformation. As a Christian it is no longer my aim to replace one earthly government with another, but to speed the day when all the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of God (Revelation 11:15). My task as a Christian in this regard is to continually examine my life and remove the seeds of war and injustice wherever I find them. The most and best I can do to bring about the Kingdom of God is to live myself as if it were already here. I may be called to witness to others, but never to force them to change.

When we rely on our national military force to protect us rather than placing our faith in God, we become idolators.

The first great commandment is to love God totally. Therefore my first loyalty is to God, not to my country. Christ calls us to love our enemy, to pray for them and to do good to them. I cannot do these things and also take up arms against them.

The second great commandment is to love our neighbor. Therefore my second loyalty is to my neighbor, helping those who need help as the Good Samaritan did.

My third loyalty, then, can be to my country—but no higher than third. We are told to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. But like Dorothy Day, I find after I render unto God what is God's, there is nothing left for Caesar.

Is this a risky position to take in life—to place all my trust in an unseen God, rather than military defenses I can see and touch? Of course it is; it places me and people like me in a very vulnerable position. But that is the nature of faith: to put ourselves at risk on behalf of what we believe to be true. Discipleship is costly. The standard for Christians is always faithfulness, not success. In God we really do trust.

[Billy Cox]

How do you reconcile the ideals of pacifism with the militaristic backdrop of the Old Testament?

One could argue that a people under subjugation (as in the New Testament) will be pacifist, because to be otherwise is to be dead.

[Hans Deventer]

How do you reconcile the ideals of pacifism with the militaristic backdrop of the Old Testament?

By saying that revelation is progressive and Jesus is God's ultimate revelation. That's also why we don't do burnt offerings and stonings anymore, etc, etc etc.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I agree with the overall concept of pacifism and used to label myself that way. However, I have come to dislike the term.

The term itself implies being passive. Truth is a "Pacificist" can (should) be very proactive, just not violent.

Take an example from Gandhi's life... Indians (from India, not native Americans!) are told they can't make salt because salt is a legal British monopoly in India. To be passive would be to say, "OK, I won't make salt." Pro-active non-violence meant walking to the sea and making salt even though there were consequences.

Or in the American civil rights movement, blacks were told they couldn't eat at certain lunch counters. A passive person would just accept that. A pro-active non-violent person would go the lunch counter, take a seat and stay put. They just wouldn't resort to violence when physically accosted for doing so.

Because of the misperception (due to the term?), pacifists are sometimes asked why they don't think they should fight evil, etc. Pacifists do believe in the fight! They just don't think violience is the right method.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. could both be called pacfisits but neither of them were passive!

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

What nonviolent means could have removed Hitler from power?

How different would today's world be if NATO had unilaterally disarmed as many pacifists were advocating in the 80s?

[Hans Deventer]

What nonviolent means could have removed Hitler from power?

I guess that was the main point where the Jews were so disappointed in Jesus that they wanted Him dead.

[Dennis M. Scott]

"You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," but I say to you . . .

There are a number of similar things that Jesus said about OT passages.

Just being ornery. :basic03

[Randy Wise]

How do you reconcile the ideals of pacifism with the militaristic backdrop of the Old Testament?

One could argue that a people under subjugation (as in the New Testament) will be pacifist, because to be otherwise is to be dead.


Or we could just say there is a difference between vengeance and defense. <G>
Randy

Luke 22
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered. 36He 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. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=22&version=31#fen-NIV-25893b)]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

[Chris Baker]

The question I have about pacifism is that I don't see this totally non-violent Jesus that others sometimes see. The biggest incongruency in my opinion is the story of Jesus clearing out the Temple. John tells us that Jesus made a whip with his own hands. Granted, Jesus perhaps only used it on the animals, but does this really make it non-violent? Even if Jesus only used the whip on animals it seems that at the very least the people in the Temple would have been intimidated by the use of the whip on the animals.

Also, the word used, I think in Mark, to describe Jesus' "throwing out" of the sellers is the same word (ekballo) Mark uses to describe how demons who were possessing people "throw around" thier bodies. At the very least, it seems to not be a "gentle nudge" toward the door, but a driving out with some force behind it.

So it seems that the picture we get of Jesus in this story is one with a whip in hand, throwing over tables, animals being set free and running/flying all over the place, and the sellers being driven out.

In many ways I want to be a pacifist, but it doesn't seem to fully fit with the Jesus portrayed in the story. How can pacifism and this story be reconciled?

[Hans Deventer]

The question I have about pacifism is that I don't see this totally non-violent Jesus that others sometimes see. The biggest incongruency in my opinion is the story of Jesus clearing out the Temple. John tells us that Jesus made a whip with his own hands. Granted, Jesus perhaps only used it on the animals, but does this really make it non-violent? Even if Jesus only used the whip on animals it seems that at the very least the people in the Temple would have been intimidated by the use of the whip on the animals.

Also, the word used, I think in Mark, to describe Jesus' "throwing out" of the sellers is the same word (ekballo) Mark uses to describe how demons who were possessing people "throw around" thier bodies. At the very least, it seems to not be a "gentle nudge" toward the door, but a driving out with some force behind it.

So it seems that the picture we get of Jesus in this story is one with a whip in hand, throwing over tables, animals being set free and running/flying all over the place, and the sellers being driven out.

In many ways I want to be a pacifist, but it doesn't seem to fully fit with the Jesus portrayed in the story. How can pacifism and this story be reconciled?

Several remarks.

First, I have a problem. Each and every time there has been a discussion on NazNet on this topic, this specific story is thrown in as if it overturns the entire image of Jesus. It does to the extent that the wars in the OT turn God into Mars, the god of war. So my initial statement is that Isaiah 53 as it was worked out in His life is more important in describing Jesus than this specific story. It is better to explain the things we do not understand by the things that we do than the other way around.

Second, Jesus' anger was towards people that turned his Father's house into a mall rather than a house of prayer, especially (it seems) for the gentiles. That means He did not defend Himself, He defended his Father. That is already quite a difference from how the world operates.

Third, we should always remember Romans 12:
19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
So even if the Lord (rightfully!) uses violence, we have no right to do that.

Fourth, we need to remember that judgement is real. No matter how much we would love to see God as Santa, it is not true. Hell is real, judgement is real. The fact that God went out of His way to save us, means that He has very good reason to do so, because the alternative to salvation is horrible. Now one can argue that it is ultimately we ourselves who choose life over death or death over life, but still the fact remains that God is just and will one day face us with the consequences of our choices.

Now all of the above does not nullify that Jesus indeed came as a lamb, silently. Nor the fact that He wants us to take up His cross and do the same, and leave our defense up to Him. It is clear that God is passionate about this, and indeed hates sin. Within the context as I described here, I have no problem seeing the Jesus I must follow as (most of all and more than anything else) the Lamb of God. I don't need to follow the Lion of David.

[Dale Cozby]

The funny thing about pacifism is how good it looks on paper and how bad it works in "real" life.

If I walked into my home and found a man raping my wife, the ideals of pacifism would be out the door.

If I saw a man assaulting/mugging a woman or a child in a park, I would most definately be "pro-active"

I would not come up to these men and speak kind words of brotherly love to convince them of thier wrong doing. I would take quick and decisive action with all force needed to defend the innocent.

Now, let's take these ideals to a macro scale. Nation upon nation.
God causes nations to rise and fall, right? A quick look through history will tell you His preferred method for doing so. War.
But we know that not all wars are just wars.

Like all things pacifism is an ideal that should be used when it can cause the greatest good and likewise violence should always be used in moderation when other methods fail.

If we use Wesley's quadralateral , then Reason should figure heavily into our decision to use violent means to bring about the greatest good.

Evil should be opposed, pro-active pacifism is only one means to do so. Pacifism(doing nothing), passive-agressive, and aggressive resistence are other means. The wise man knows when God would have him apply each of these.

[Hans Deventer]

The funny thing about pacifism is how good it looks on paper and how bad it works in "real" life.

I'm not quite sure how anything in this discussion can be "funny", but I guess one could likewise say that it is "funny" how violence has worked out so bad in real life throughout history.

If I walked into my home and found a man raping my wife, the ideals of pacifism would be out the door.

I respect your honesty.

Now, let's take these ideals to a macro scale. Nation upon nation. God causes nations to rise and fall, right? A quick look through history will tell you His preferred method for doing so. War.
But we know that not all wars are just wars.

His preferred way? That is a very strange kind of theology. Next thing you are saying is God just loves the slaughter of the battlefield, the more victims the better. I'm not sure we're talking about the same God here.

Mine said: "all who draw the sword will die by the sword".

Like all things pacifism is an ideal that should be used when it can cause the greatest good and likewise violence should always be used in moderation when other methods fail.

Sounds reasonable. But not like my Lord.

If we use Wesley's quadrilateral , then Reason should figure heavily into our decision to use violent means to bring about the greatest good.

I don't think so. Reason can only help understand the Scriptures and speak where they do not. The Scriptures are always the first. Tradition, reason and experience are secondary.

Evil should be opposed, pro-active pacifism is only one means to do so. Pacifism(doing nothing), passive-agressive, and aggressive resistence are other means. The wise man knows when God would have him apply each of these.

I refer to Wilson's good explanation in this thread of how pacifism is not quite doing nothing, on the contrary. It can be very active resistance indeed. But, it is non-violent.

[Chris Baker]

Several remarks.
Now all of the above does not nullify that Jesus indeed came as a lamb, silently. Nor the fact that He wants us to take up His cross and do the same, and leave our defense up to Him. It is clear that God is passionate about this, and indeed hates sin. Within the context as I described here, I have no problem seeing the Jesus I must follow as (most of all and more than anything else) the Lamb of God. I don't need to follow the Lion of David.

I think what I hear you saying in the bulk of your post is that even though Jesus wasn't always non-violent (though he was most of the time), we are called to always be non-violent. Is that a fair summary?

I'm also curious about your division between "the Lamb of God" and "the Lion of David". I propose that it is a false distinction. The Lamb of God is the Lion of David. To follow one is to follow the other. If we are following Jesus, we are following both the Lamb of God and the Lion of David, as Jesus is not one of them, but both of them.

[Billy Cox]

In my opinion, pacifism overestimates the innate goodness of people. The Bible, both Old Testament and New refutes this level of optimism.

Pacifism treats the preservation of human life as the highest good. I don't see strong biblical support for this idea either.

The strongest argument against pacifism is how its application throughout history has frequently made it an accomplice to evil. I have not seen any rebuttal to that objection in this thread, and I will be surprised if I do.

To sum it up...pacifism is a great thing to practice during peacetime.

[Dave McClung]

While I respect the right of anyone to claim to be a "Pacifist", I don't think I have ever really met one. When I was a young man facing the possibility of the draft, I was forced to face the issues on a personal basis. I wasn't married at the time, but I expected to be. I asked myself, "If another man was about to abuse my wife or child, would I stand by and watch without taking any action to defend them?" I concluded that I wouldn't. With that realization, I couldn't really claim to be a pacifist. Once I accepted that there was a point at which I would resort to force, the question became where to draw the line.

I don't believe for a minute that Jesus would have allowed women or children to be abused in his presence without using force to protect them.

[Hans Deventer]

I think what I hear you saying in the bulk of your post is that even though Jesus wasn't always non-violent (though he was most of the time), we are called to always be non-violent. Is that a fair summary?

Yes.

I'm also curious about your division between "the Lamb of God" and "the Lion of David". I propose that it is a false distinction.

You may.

The Lamb of God is the Lion of David.

Of course. But the very fact that you mention both titles means that there is a difference, or the phrases would simply overlap.

To follow one is to follow the other. If we are following Jesus, we are following both the Lamb of God and the Lion of David, as Jesus is not one of them, but both of them.

Sure, but you are missing the point. The point is that the Lion came as a Lamb. Now as I wrote below in reply to Billy, the people of Israel wanted a Lion and rejected the Lamb. So there is a fundamental and clear distinction. We should not make the same mistake. The Lamb will return as Lion and of course we all know that He is our very same Lord. But right now, in this world, our Lord says we should pick up our cross. Which means, follow the Lamb. That is our model, and not the Lion.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

The strongest argument against pacifism is how its application throughout history has frequently made it an accomplice to evil. I have not seen any rebuttal to that objection in this thread, and I will be surprised if I do.

I confess to being hard pressed to raising a "rebuttal" because I don't even know what you mean. Please give some examples of when non-violence has been properly applied and has thus served as an "accomplice" to evil. (My understanding of accomplice is that of an assistant or helper.)

I don't think it has been applied very often and when it has been applied on a large scale it has worked wonders.

Three examples:


First 300 years of Christianity. Christianity is still here, Roman empire is gone.
Gandhi and India and the overthrow of British rule without going to arms.
Civil rights movement in USA during early 60s.


Wilson

[Kevin Rector]

What nonviolent means could have removed Hitler from power?

That is the wrong question.

The question we have to ask is if we have the theological imagination to believe that God could end the evil of Hitler without the military intervention of the United States? Sadly, I think for many American Christians the answer is "no".

Perhaps, had the United States never entered the war with guns blazing Germany and Japan might have conquered the world. This might have led to 100 or 1000 years of totalitarian nightmares and vicious violence.

During this regime the church would have been as those earliest Christians under Roman oppression. Maybe the church would have grown stronger than it ever could have under comfortable post-WWII America. Perhaps instead of a billion Christians in the world by 2007 there might be two billion Christians as the spread of the good news would continue with even more fervor under a Nazi regime.

It could be that by entering World War Two we made life better on earth for many people and saved many people from atrocities and at the same time took away the very dificulties that might motivate them to seek out God.

This is of course all speculation. But we must not assume that because the "good guys" won WWII (or any conflict) that it was what "should" have happened from an eschatological perspective.

As a aside which might color our thoughts on non-violence; we must disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is such a person as an "innocent", we are all victims of our own collective sinful nature.

Finally, the idea of non-violence is simply that you can kill me and I will not kill you. You can kill my family but I will not kill you. You can do anything at all but I will not hurt you. This is an incredibly impractical way of dealing with evil; in fact it is exactly as impractical as dying on a cross for the sake of your enemies when you have the power to destroy your enemies and take over the world.

Kevin

Edited to add: I am not saying that I have the strength or faith to live this way if I saw someone being attacked (and I pray that I'll never have to find out). I hope though that if that time ever presents itself I will be able to take the attackers blows with grace and love for the attacker while the other person escapes. But only God knows.

[Hans Deventer]

While I respect the right of anyone to claim to be a "Pacifist", I don't think I have ever really met one. When I was a young man facing the possibility of the draft, I was forced to face the issues on a personal basis. I wasn't married at the time, but I expected to be. I asked myself, "If another man was about to abuse my wife or child, would I stand by and watch without taking any action to defend them?" I concluded that I wouldn't. With that realization, I couldn't really claim to be a pacifist.

Dave, I was in the very same situation and reached the same conclusion back in 1976.

I don't believe for a minute that Jesus would have allowed women or children to be abused in his presence without using force to protect them.

I've been thinking about this since last night. There are several things to say.


We have to make an "estimated guess" here. The Scriptures don't mention such a situation.

It is clear that Jesus would not have defended Himself.

He told us to turn the other cheek.

He told his disciples to expect torture and being killed. And of course the command to take up our cross and follow Him wasn't metaphorical in those days, crucifixions were an all too common sight.

It is also clear from history that God did and does not stop such abuse as you mentioned. He did not stop the killing of the babies in Bethlehem, nor the murdering of 6 million Jews in World War II. The list is endless. Yes, sometimes people are protected. Sometimes they are saved out of a bad situation. Think of Peter being saved from prison. But James, a little earlier, was killed, and so was Stephen. In fact, I understand that never have as many Christians been killed for their faith as in the 20th century.

The Bible (both in OT and NT) makes it clear that we should leave the avenge to Him.

Crucifixions being so numerous in His day, surely He must have seen innocent people die. And done nothing. I know this is an argument by assumption, but still.


I understand there is no "proof" about the situation you mentioned, but with all of the above in mind, am a lot more doubtful about what Jesus would have done.

It seems the message for us is to to be found in Luke 12:

4 "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.

One more thing that comes to mind. When Jesus read from the prophet Isaiah, explaining His ministry, He did not read all of the prophecy. In Isaiah 61 it reads:

1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.

He read:

Luke 4:18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

I have often thought, He must have stopped purposely before the sentence: to proclaim ....the day of vengeance of our God. For this was not yet to happen, though it will come. The time was not ready for the Lord "to restore the kingdom to Israel" (Acts 1). We live, as many theologians have noticed, in the time of the "yet and not yet". And one of the things that are not yet is God's peace on earth as a whole. The time when there will be no mourning has not yet arrived, nor the time for God to wipe every tear form our eyes. And until that day, we can only say with Paul in Romans 8:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[Dennis M. Scott]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]I don't believe for a minute that Jesus would have allowed women or children to be abused in his presence without using force to protect them.



Even more mystifying is that He does.

[Randy Wise]

Is this a risky position to take in life—to place all my trust in an unseen God, rather than military defenses I can see and touch? Of course it is; it places me and people like me in a very vulnerable position. But that is the nature of faith: to put ourselves at risk on behalf of what we believe to be true. Discipleship is costly. The standard for Christians is always faithfulness, not success. In God we really do trust.


Jesus placed His faith in the Father, but when the devil tempted Him with scripture to throw Himself down because God would keep Him from harm Jesus replied, it is also written "you shall not put the Lord your God to the test".

Randy

[David Cash]

Just a reminder, God ordained government to serve as His agent for justice, according to Romans in the New Testament. I think it is fair to say that His plan also includes the protection of people.

The question isn't whether governments should use violence to defend their citizens or to punish evil. They are acting as God's instruments when they do so. The question is whether we as Christians should be involved in these governmental functions, or to recognize the stance of my nonresistant Mennonite friends, if we should be involved in government at all.

I'm not sure I have good answers to these latter questions.

David Cash

[Randy Wise]

Just a reminder, God ordained government to serve as His agent for justice, according to Romans in the New Testament. I think it is fair to say that His plan also includes the protection of people.

The question isn't whether governments should use violence to defend their citizens or to punish evil. They are acting as God's instruments when they do so. The question is whether we as Christians should be involved in these governmental functions, or to recognize the stance of my nonresistant Mennonite friends, if we should be involved in government at all.

I'm not sure I have good answers to these latter questions.

David Cash

It seems finding the wright question is the hard part <g>

What if you were part of the government? How would you not be part of God's use of that government to protect or defend your family, your neighbor, your country? Why would Jesus instruct his disciples to purchase a sword, but said two was enough? Would that indicate a use for defense? My faith allows the use of force for the defense of the innocent. My thoughts anyway.
Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Just a reminder, God ordained government to serve as His agent for justice, according to Romans in the New Testament. I think it is fair to say that His plan also includes the protection of people.

Yes. And perhaps it is interesting to notice that the government Paul was talking about was the Roman empire, not really known for their lenient way with political opponents. They were the ones that crucified the Lord too. So am I following you here to say that even if the USA came under Chinese rule, denying you freedom and democracy, you should still accept them as "His agents for justice"?

[Hans Deventer]

Is this a risky position to take in life—to place all my trust in an unseen God, rather than military defenses I can see and touch? Of course it is; it places me and people like me in a very vulnerable position. But that is the nature of faith: to put ourselves at risk on behalf of what we believe to be true. Discipleship is costly. The standard for Christians is always faithfulness, not success. In God we really do trust.

Jesus placed His faith in the Father, but when the devil tempted Him with scripture to throw Himself down because God would keep Him from harm Jesus replied, it is also written "you shall not put the Lord your God to the test".

Randy, I really appreciate this post. I agree with the first paragraph and have to say I have as yet not considered the question you pose in the second, but it is a very valid one. One that requires more thought. I'll get back with you!

[Brad Mercer]

Okay, I know I'm a little obsessive-compulsive, and this is a silly contribution to a serious thread, but can the author or moderator or someone fix that "on on" in the subject line? It's driving me crazy! ;-)

Brad

[Hans Deventer]

Okay, I know I'm a little obsessive-compulsive, and this is a silly contribution to a serious thread, but can the author or moderator or someone fix that "on on" in the subject line? It's driving me crazy! ;-)

Brad, I've changed the thread header. But a direct reply to a post with the wrong header will still have the double "on" in it, unless edited by hand (as I did with this post and you could have done with yours :basic03 )

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm not sure I have good answers to these latter questions.

David Cash

Perhaps that admission - for all of us - is even closer to what we're striving for: an attitude of openess and seeking.

The older I get the more questions I have, and the more comfortable I am living with the tension of not having all the answers.

[Hans Deventer]

Jesus placed His faith in the Father, but when the devil tempted Him with scripture to throw Himself down because God would keep Him from harm Jesus replied, it is also written "you shall not put the Lord your God to the test".

So, where does faith become putting God to the test? There are Christians that do not have insurances, for instance. Though they are often part of communities that support one another in times of crisis.

But perhaps we should stick to the example you mentioned. Where is the line being drawn here? I think one can say that the devil tempted Jesus in order for Him NOT to put his faith in God, but follow His human side and the human ways in order to satisfy his needs (bread), to become known as the Messiah (jump) or to gain the whole earth (worship). These were all contrary to trusting God to provide for Him and make Him a blessing for the entire earth and eventually become Lord of all. The devil tried to make the first two sounds pious and Biblical, but they were only illegal means to achieve Jesus' goals.

I think we start to tempt God if we are using His words for our own good, our own goals, our own fame or success, in stead of following Him.

[Brad Mercer]

Brad, I've changed the thread header. But a direct reply to a post with the wrong header will still have the double "on" in it, unless edited by hand (as I did with this post and you could have done with yours :basic03 )

Woo Hoo! I didn't know you could actually fix it. The view I use in NazNet is the list of New Posts, so the only subject line I really notice is the original.

Thanks!

Blast, now I feel obligated to contribute something serious to the discussion. Maybe I'll have time for thought during the weekend.

Love,
Brad

[Randy Wise]

So, where does faith become putting God to the test? There are Christians that do not have insurances, for instance. Though they are often part of communities that support one another in times of crisis.


not Hans=>Is this a risky position to take in life—to place all my trust in an unseen God, rather than military defenses I can see and touch?

I read the above statement, which isn't yours, as doing away with the Military completely in the name of faith and trust in God, which to me is foolish in this day and age. That reminded me of how satan tempted Jesus who we all agree has great faith in the Father and the reply Jesus made in the face of such temptation.
Randy

[Randy Wise]

Yes. And perhaps it is interesting to notice that the government Paul was talking about was the Roman empire, not really known for their lenient way with political opponents. They were the ones that crucified the Lord too. So am I following you here to say that even if the USA came under Chinese rule, denying you freedom and democracy, you should still accept them as "His agents for justice"?


Hi Hans, what would be the result of a absence of any government even a harsh one? I think the answer would be lawlessness. I could ask since our government in the US isn't a harsh one does that then validate the scripture again? Doesn't seem right to judge the teaching of Paul invalid because some governments are harsh. It could be you do the crime you end up dead instead of you do the crime you do the time, but if you keep the law, no worries.
Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Hi Hans, what would be the result of a absence of any government even a harsh one? I think the answer would be lawlessness.

Yes, I think that is what Paul had in mind.

I could ask since our government in the US isn't a harsh one does that then validate the scripture again? Doesn't seem right to judge the teaching of Paul invalid because some governments are harsh. It could be you do the crime you end up dead instead of you do the crime you do the time, but if you keep the law, no worries.


No, I don't want to consider Paul's teaching invalid at all! I just found it remarkable that for centuries, that very same government killed Christians by the thousands, just because they were Christians. So the application, and I think I agree with you there, has to do with preventing lawlessness regarding crimes etc, but little with self defence as Christians, or with defending ideals of freedom and democracy as a nation, for it was the very same government that killed the Christians and nobody knew freedom and democracy in those days anyway. Just ask the Jews of 67-70 and 132-135 AD.

[William Hunter]

But, you still cannot explain away the fact that Jesus made a weapon and used it on people to get His will done. God is not finished using armies to do His bidding against evil in this world.



Several remarks.

First, I have a problem. Each and every time there has been a discussion on NazNet on this topic, this specific story is thrown in as if it overturns the entire image of Jesus. It does to the extent that the wars in the OT turn God into Mars, the god of war. So my initial statement is that Isaiah 53 as it was worked out in His life is more important in describing Jesus than this specific story. It is better to explain the things we do not understand by the things that we do than the other way around.

Second, Jesus' anger was towards people that turned his Father's house into a mall rather than a house of prayer, especially (it seems) for the gentiles. That means He did not defend Himself, He defended his Father. That is already quite a difference from how the world operates.

Third, we should always remember Romans 12:
19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
So even if the Lord (rightfully!) uses violence, we have no right to do that.

Fourth, we need to remember that judgement is real. No matter how much we would love to see God as Santa, it is not true. Hell is real, judgement is real. The fact that God went out of His way to save us, means that He has very good reason to do so, because the alternative to salvation is horrible. Now one can argue that it is ultimately we ourselves who choose life over death or death over life, but still the fact remains that God is just and will one day face us with the consequences of our choices.

Now all of the above does not nullify that Jesus indeed came as a lamb, silently. Nor the fact that He wants us to take up His cross and do the same, and leave our defense up to Him. It is clear that God is passionate about this, and indeed hates sin. Within the context as I described here, I have no problem seeing the Jesus I must follow as (most of all and more than anything else) the Lamb of God. I don't need to follow the Lion of David.

[Hans Deventer]

But, you still cannot explain away the fact that Jesus made a weapon and used it on people to get His will done.

I did not intend to. But I do stand by my conclusion that "So even if the Lord (rightfully!) uses violence, we have no right to do that."

God is not finished using armies to do His bidding against evil in this world.

Well, that is exactly what I am wondering. In Dutch, we have a saying that 'God can make a straight hit with a crooked stick'. (I don't know if there is an English equivalent). Perhaps it is better to quote the Scriptures and say that "in all things God works for the good of those who love him". He even used David's sin to include Bathseba in the line of the Messiah. Used the sin of Joseph's brothers so save their families. Used the devil's apparent victory to his utter defeat. It seems He has a way of turning bad things into good. But as long as there are no prophets stating, "thus says the Lord", I'm quite reluctant to say "Gott mitt uns" (God with us), as it said on the belts of the SS soldiers in WW2. I think Kevin's post was a good one in that respect.

[Randy Wise]

[quote=Hans Deventer;74326]I did not intend to. But I do stand by my conclusion that "So even if the Lord (rightfully!) uses violence, we have no right to do that."


I think the point is force is needed sometimes to protect the innocent and that force is lawful. There are christians in law enforcement and the military and it would be wrong to state what they are doing when they need to use force is unlawful or "we have no right to do so".

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

There are christians in law enforcement and the military and it would be wrong to state what they are doing when they need to use force is unlawful or "we have no right to do so".

Why? The Mennonites and the Quakers are among those that have a longstanding tradition in this view, it is hardly a new one. Don't they have the right to their opinion? Why would it be wrong to state an opinion based on one's reading of the Scriptures? Does one need to agree with anything any Christian does?

History has shown that some Christians have partaken in war and some have believed they could not. What is the "wrong" here?

[Randy Wise]

Why? The Mennonites and the Quakers are among those that have a longstanding tradition in this view, it is hardly a new one. Don't they have the right to their opinion? Why would it be wrong to state an opinion based on one's reading of the Scriptures? Does one need to agree with anything any Christian does?

History has shown that some Christians have partaken in war and some have believed they could not. What is the "wrong" here?


History has shown that my country still stands because brave men and women defended the country against attack. That's whats wrong with the above statement.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

History has shown that my country still stands because brave men and women defended the country against attack. That's whats wrong with the above statement.

We're running in circles. See Kevin's post again.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

But, you still cannot explain away the fact that Jesus made a weapon and used it on people

I can explain it away because it is in fact, not a fact.

I assume you refer to the temple clearing. Let's review....

Matthew 21:12-13
12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

No mention in Matthew of Jesus making a weapon and using it on people. He overturned tables and benches and issued oral commands.

Mark 11:15-17
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations' But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

No mention in Mark of Jesus making a weapon and using it on people. He overturned tables and benches and issued oral commands and wouldn't let people carry merchandise through the courts.

Luke 19:45-46
45 Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

No mention in Luke of Jesus making a weapon and using it on people. Luke only mentions oral commands.

John 2:14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

John's version has Jesus making a whip but specifically states it was for the sheep and cattle. That makes it a tool for animals not a weapon for people. When it comes to people, John records Jesus' technique as scattering coins, overturning tables, and giving oral commands.

Wilson

[Dale Cozby]

I'm not quite sure how anything in this discussion can be "funny", but I guess one could likewise say that it is "funny" how violence has worked out so bad in real life throughout history. The term "funny" as used in most english language contexts these days means: ironic, quirky,or suspicious, perplexing, perplexing, or amusing.

His preferred way? That is a very strange kind of theology. Next thing you are saying is God just loves the slaughter of the battlefield, the more victims the better. I'm not sure we're talking about the same God here. The same God that ordered the genocide of the Canaanite people by Israel. The same God that used Assyria and then Babylon to crush Israel and Judah and Egypt. The God that had Israel kill every Midian male. The God that struck down the first born if Egypt and wiped the earth with a flood, and will ultimately destroy all the ungodly.

The God that said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

Mine said: "all who draw the sword will die by the sword". But did he not also tell them to sell thier cloak and buy a sword too? why did he do that?

Reason can only help understand the Scriptures and speak where they do not. The Scriptures are always the first. Tradition, reason and experience are secondary. So if we read the Scriptures and it says :
'For this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'The sword of the king of Babylon
will come against you. I will cause your hordes to fall
by the swords of mighty men—
the most ruthless of all nations.
They will shatter the pride of Egypt,
and all her hordes will be overthrown.
We also see in the traditions of men, evil nations overthrown, even more recently the evil that existed in Germany under the Nazis. was it God ordained? Or can we see the "reasons" from Scripture why it had to fall. So I think reason can be used in accordance with scripture, not apart from it. Scripture is supreme, but we use the others to help clarify, not to speak beyond scripture.

I refer to Wilson's good explanation in this thread of how pacifism is not quite doing nothing, on the contrary. It can be very active resistance indeed. But, it is non-violent.

Pacifism has at its root, peace. A noble idea. Non-resistence and dispute resolution without violence.

The question I put forth is: Can Christianity truly be Christian if it exalts pacifism above obedience to God's Word?

We are called to love our neighbor as ourself. So, if someone was assaulting me and I had no means of escape and I allowed the person to beat me to death in the name of pacifism, surely I would not want that sort of death but to live if at all possible. Therefore, if a Christian who was able to prevent my horrible and cruel death by his timely intervention, he would be fullfilling the law of Christ by helping me to live.

What I am saying is that pacifism can be turned into a foolish idol when adhered to beyond reason, rather than a noble idea and means to glorify God.

[Randy Wise]

Yes, I think that is what Paul had in mind.



No, I don't want to consider Paul's teaching invalid at all! I just found it remarkable that for centuries, that very same government killed Christians by the thousands, just because they were Christians. So the application, and I think I agree with you there, has to do with preventing lawlessness regarding crimes etc, but little with self defence as Christians, or with defending ideals of freedom and democracy as a nation, for it was the very same government that killed the Christians and nobody knew freedom and democracy in those days anyway. Just ask the Jews of 67-70 and 132-135 AD.


I think you would do well to reread what Paul wrote in Romans about Governments and the question I asked in regard to what Paul wrote, but as far as this thread I have stated enough.

Randy

[Dale Cozby]

I think what I hear you saying in the bulk of your post is that even though Jesus wasn't always non-violent (though he was most of the time), we are called to always be non-violent. Is that a fair summary? Yes
If we are as Christians called to non-violence, then would not all violence be sin? I mean if pacifism is the will of God for All Christians All the time, it would follow that all violence then is out of the will of God(sin)

IF all violence is out of the will of God.
That would mean that all Christians serving in all military, police, FBI, CIA, security guard positions, etc. are out of the will of God. You would then be supposing that all Christians must step out of public service if it requires the use of force to be in the will of God.

I even suppose that my father using corporal punishment(an act of violence) would have been out of the will of God then when he used a the "belt of discipline". Lots of people then out of the will of God who think they are Christians then.

You see how quickly we can make a new "god" out of pacifism? Sorry. I disagree.

Let's get back to the really big commands: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. And Do unto others as you have them do unto you.

IF we keep those on the top of the pile of "commands" then we may find pacifism the best course sometimes and aggression the best course sometimes. Hard to be the "Light of the World" when we abdicate our place in society.

[Kevin Rector]

Therefore, if a Christian who was able to prevent my horrible and cruel death by his timely intervention, he would be fullfilling the law of Christ by helping me to live.

So is it better to kill an infidel for a Christian or better to let the Christian meet Christ face to face and have an opportunity to save his killer? Just wondering.


Let's get back to the really big commands: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself.

What does it mean to love your neighbor? Especially when your neighbor is your enemy and wishes evil up on you? Do you remember how Jesus answered the follow up question of "who is my neighbor"?

And Do unto others as you have them do unto you.

We are not exempted from this command just because the other wants to kill us or our loved ones.


IF we keep those on the top of the pile of "commands" then we may find pacifism the best course sometimes and aggression the best course sometimes. Hard to be the "Light of the World" when we abdicate our place in society.

Pacifism rightly understood is not an abdication of our place in society. Rather it is a radical refusal to live according to the values and economy of this world. Pacifism refuses to see this world as all there is, rather it takes a very long and very eternal perspective, one the world simply can not accept.

[Hans Deventer]

The term "funny" as used in most english language contexts these days means: ironic, quirky,or suspicious, perplexing, perplexing, or amusing.

I readily admit I only know English as a second language, but I did have those meanings in mind. It was not amusing, nor ironic or perplexing.

The same God that ordered the genocide of the Canaanite people by Israel. The same God that used Assyria and then Babylon to crush Israel and Judah and Egypt. The God that had Israel kill every Midian male. The God that struck down the first born if Egypt and wiped the earth with a flood, and will ultimately destroy all the ungodly.

Yes. So any time you'll hear Him or his prophet say, kill all Iranians, go ahead

The God that said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

Because even here, you find that if you try to follow God's word, people are out for the slaughter. Let alone among none Christians. And indeed, so it happened with all the apostles but John. They were all killed.

But did he not also tell them to sell thier cloak and buy a sword too? why did he do that?

Read Wilson's reply. Again, it is better to interpret the difficult passages by the obvious ones than the other way around. It is clear Jesus nowhere expected his disciples to fight.

So if we read the Scriptures and it says :
'For this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'The sword of the king of Babylon
will come against you. I will cause your hordes to fall
by the swords of mighty men—
the most ruthless of all nations.
They will shatter the pride of Egypt,
and all her hordes will be overthrown.

Then the Lord is predicting what will happen. Though even that has its limits, for every prophecy has as its goal that people will turn from their wickedness. Read Jeremiah 18:

7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. 11 "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.' 12 But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.' "

Or as Ezekiel heard the Lord say:

18:30 "Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!


We also see in the traditions of men, evil nations overthrown, even more recently the evil that existed in Germany under the Nazis. Was it God ordained?

I am again referring to Kevin's excellent post on the Nazi's and WW2.


Pacifism has at its root, peace. A noble idea. Non-resistence and dispute resolution without violence.

The question I put forth is: Can Christianity truly be Christian if it exalts pacifism above obedience to God's Word?

That is the wrong question. The question is, what does the word of God teach, especially when spoken by the Living Word Himself? Being God's ultimate revelation, high above any other before or after?

We are called to love our neighbor as ourself. So, if someone was assaulting me and I had no means of escape and I allowed the person to beat me to death in the name of pacifism, surely I would not want that sort of death but to live if at all possible. Therefore, if a Christian who was able to prevent my horrible and cruel death by his timely intervention, he would be fullfilling the law of Christ by helping me to live.

First, it is NOT in the name of pacifism. It is in the name of Christ who told us to turn the other cheek and did the same Himself. That is very fundamental, essential and crucial to the discussion.

What I am saying is that pacifism can be turned into a foolish idol when adhered to beyond reason, rather than a noble idea and means to glorify God.

Dale, as far as taking up you cross and turning the other cheek is "beyond reason", I readily admit to foolishness. However,

1 Corinthians 1:18 - the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

And what is the message of the cross? It is a Messiah who died on a cross but rose from the grave again by the power of God, and bids us to follow Him and promises the same resurrection. That is the very heart of the gospel.
It is not about "accepting Christ" as some idea that once adhered to, will save me. It is about following the Lamb who told us that if we want to keep our lives, will will lose them, but if we are willing to lose, we will find it.

I think the church in general has pulled the teeth out of the gospel and turned it into some kind of life insurance. You pay your tithes, you go to church on Sunday's and you're all set. But Jesus had another message. The Sermon on the Mount deals a radical blow to any such stupidity. He came to give us life, but that life means the death of our own lives, our self righteousness, our tendency to always protect our own interests. The cross in Jesus time wasn't a symbol yet, to be taken figuratively. It was very real and totally clear.

The Fall of the church was when church and state became intertwined during emperor Constantine. It has been a diabolical marriage ever since.

It has been told that during the Cold War, Christians in Eastern Europe and the Sovjet Union prayed for the Christians in the West, for we were and are in greater danger than they were.

Hebrews 11 puts it in perspective

32And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

The ones who conquered were called by God to do so, and acted as God's judgement upon those nations they conquered. But ever since those days, I haven't heard too many prophets speaking on behalf of God, ordering us to destroy ...... (fill in the blanks). Since those days I have heard One who was more than a prophet, and He showed us a very different way. I think I'd rather follow Him than the messages of the prophets of old regarding war in their specific situations.

[Hans Deventer]

If we are as Christians called to non-violence, then would not all violence be sin? I mean if pacifism is the will of God for All Christians All the time, it would follow that all violence then is out of the will of God(sin)

Well, it is obvious (as I wrote elsewhere) that some have through time been commanded by God to use violence. Don't ask me why, He is God and I am not.

IF all violence is out of the will of God.
That would mean that all Christians serving in all military, police, FBI, CIA, security guard positions, etc. are out of the will of God. You would then be supposing that all Christians must step out of public service if it requires the use of force to be in the will of God.

Now we're getting at the right question. How can one kill, even ex-officio, as a Christian? If this is seen as at least a huge problem, then we have already gained a lot. I think this will remain a personal answer for each and everyone, considering the good than can be done in such a position with the possible evil on the other side.
You know, I can really respect people who wrestle with this and come to opposite conclusions. It is not so cut and dried, once you want to follow Jesus and understand what He wants from us. I only have a problem if people merely point towards the OT wars or the cleansing of the temple, in my view denying the Lord's command altogether.

Point in case would be a man like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who, after writing extensively on the Sermon on the Mount, still got involved in a plot to kill Hitler. I respect that struggle.

I even suppose that my father using corporal punishment(an act of violence) would have been out of the will of God then when he used a the "belt of discipline". Lots of people then out of the will of God who think they are Christians then.

That goes without saying and isn't even solely related to this subject.

You see how quickly we can make a new "god" out of pacifism? Sorry. I disagree.

Let's get back to the really big commands: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. And Do unto others as you have them do unto you.

IF we keep those on the top of the pile of "commands" then we may find pacifism the best course sometimes and aggression the best course sometimes. Hard to be the "Light of the World" when we abdicate our place in society.

It think it is even harder to be a light to the world with a gun in your hand, killing your enemies who merely threaten your wealth. I don't know what kind of love that is. And I don't think Jesus saw any difference between those commands and the commands He gave, so I reject the distinction you make.

The trouble with these discussions is that they tend to take extreme positions. The extremes are clear, it is in the middle where the problems lie.

[Rosalie Ross]

Lance, you said on 3 that war is counterproductive. I have always believed that in the christian sense of the word..that God intends for us to be Christian Soldiers for Him. Are you familiar with the Salvation Army? How do you feel toward the song "Onward Christian Soldiers"? What about the the the "Breastplate of Righteousness" that God talks about in His word? And also the Sword of the Spirit"? Do you think that God was against all war? I too want to walk in peace and hate killing, but don't you think that the devil is at war with us? Are we to just stand back and and not be Bold in our faith? Just would like your opinion on these things. Rosalie

[Lance Schmitz]

Rosalie-

I am not the author of the essay, I am just the one who shared it with the group.

The ultimate revelation of God was Jesus and it seems that Jesus was a person of peace. Oftentimes folk will select the passages about Jesus and the moneychangers, and the question of buying a sword, and about Jesus bringing division to families as justification of war. That is endemic of humanity as we are violent we seek so often to justify our actions and do not seek to be converted to a mind that promotes the way of Jesus Christ. I know on so many occasions I have sought to justify my actions by way of clever intellectual gymnastics, but no matter how hard I try I can't get away from the way of Jesus Christ as being a life of nonviolence that sought after the redemption of the entire cosmos by way of a loving nonviolent revolution.

Violence is terrribly unimaginative. As a Christian practioner of noviolence I work towards crafting responses to violence with love. I have had a gun pulled on me before, I have been threatene with physical harm on more than a few occasions and in each of those situations I have had to choose between violence and love. It would not be loving for me to respond to someone with a gunshot. I have known murderes and the murdered and counted them both as friends. All to often people strive to seek logical solutions to violence I hope to seek after solutions that are formed by convictions that the Christian tradition has instilled in me, namely loving peaceful responses are the ethic of the Kingdom of God.

As to your questions about the imagery of the sword of the spirit and the breastplate of righteouness they are just that imagery used to describe something they are not literal objects.

I am familiar with the Salvation Army. I completly respect them and their work with and for the poor. All of the Salvationist that I know are people that seek nonviolent responses to violent situations, even if that means taking a punch or worse.

I could keep writing but I am quite ill with a stomach bug right now.

So until next time..peace.
lance

[Dale Cozby]

The trouble with these discussions is that they tend to take extreme positions. The extremes are clear, it is in the middle where the problems lie.

I agree. The middle ground is where most of us are called to stand on this issue. I would never seek to harm another person deliberately and willfully. But if in the course of time I was presnted with the option of standing by while an evil and wicked man did harm to an innocent person, I would be compelled by my God given sense of right and wrong to stop him using what means were at my disposal, including deadly force.

Did godly people in the OT use deadly force? yes. Did Jesus come and change that when he said to turn the other cheek? yes, in part he did.
But he did not change the law or commandments, he clarified them for us.

Paul wrote that we are to live at peace with all men but then he added "as far as it depends on us". I can live at peace until evil enters my house and assaults the people God has given me charge over. At that point my obligation to protect and defend them overrules my desires to live at peace. Conflict has come and peace is gone, not of my doing but of anothers choice.

I believe this also applies to nations. That is why Iraq is such a sticky mess right now. Are our soldiers killing and being killed for a noble cause that is worthy of thier lives and souls? And I agree that each person must answer that question himself. It is ultimately between God and you the path each must walk in an effort to be non-violent and at peace.

[Kevin Rector]

But if in the course of time I was presnted with the option of standing by while an evil and wicked man did harm to an innocent person, I would be compelled by my God given sense of right and wrong to stop him using what means were at my disposal, including deadly force.

Is an "innocent" person's life more valuable than a "wicked" persons?

[Lance Schmitz]

Excellent point Kevin

[Randy Wise]

Is an "innocent" person's life more valuable than a "wicked" persons?

kevin,
That statement in either direction doesn't make a case for a theology that Christians have no right for any reason for any circumstance to use force against another person, which I believe you are arguing for this cause. You might consider in the defense of a nation both the wicked and innocent are defended. You might consider that many innocent people die in war and if they die apart from Christ their opportunity to be saved was cut short as well and how many more would die in that state if the responsible party wasn't stopped.

Just food for thought in your quest.


Randy

[Dale Cozby]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cozby
But if in the course of time I was presnted with the option of standing by while an evil and wicked man did harm to an innocent person, I would be compelled by my God given sense of right and wrong to stop him using what means were at my disposal, including deadly force.

Is an "innocent" person's life more valuable than a "wicked" persons?

I think this is a poor question.
Do you think that God is going to welcome the unrepentent sinners into His kingdom? Is he going to value them in eternity the same as those who have with a contrite heart repented and washed thier robes in the blood of the Lamb? Did he not say the last will be first and the first will be last?
Why is he going to send some to Hell and others will go to heaven? Or do you think there is no hell? No punishment for sin? IF by value you mean this form of eternal valuation, then yes. He does.

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! - Jesus

A better question might be: How will Jesus respond to those who do evil to His little children?

"Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?" declares the LORD. "Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?" Jeremiah 5:28-29

If I were a wicked sinner harming innocents, I would rather be chastised by man than to face the eternal judgement of God. Wouldn't you? A punch in the nose is alot easier to deal with than eternal damnation, don't ya think?

A man reaps what he sows. Sowing is the cause, reaping the Effect. If I defend the innocent against one who sows evil and he is hurt that is the effect(reaping) of his action. HE reaps injury for his evil.

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed” Exodus 22:2

“For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt”. Dt 10:17-19

Are we not called to defend those who cannot defend themselves? I am totally convinced we are not only called to do so, but we will be held accountable if we do not.

Don't believe me? How about God's word?

"Hear the word of the LORD,…. Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." Isaiah 1

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 1 Corinthians 13:6-7

[Hans Deventer]

I think this is a poor question.

We differ in our estimation. This question brings us to the core of the discussion. I think the point that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners is pretty crucial to the gospel and hence our valuing of life, innocent (I don't know what that looks like anyway, I am not innocent in God's eyes) or not.

I don't believe God values us according to our innocence or evilness. He will certainly JUDGE us, but that is a different story. The judgement says nothing about our value, because our value is defined by God's love or ALL of us (John 3:16). The judgement it in fact proof of our value, of God taking us completely seriously. The ants will not be judged, we humans will.

As to the defence texts, Isaiah is about the judicial system, about an honest judgement from the judges of those days, and 1 Corinth 13 is not about protecting but rather covering (see the different translations for that word).

[Cindi Hammons]

I confess to being hard pressed to raising a "rebuttal" because I don't even know what you mean. Please give some examples of when non-violence has been properly applied and has thus served as an "accomplice" to evil.

I'm not entering the fray on the pacifist issue, just trying to answer your very specific question.

Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain opted for "appeasement" of Hitler in hopes to avoid war with Germany. His reluctance to involve GB historically gave Hitler the green light to invade Poland. I would say that the Polish people (and most historians) would say that Chamberlain's Dove-ish behavior resulted in being an "accomplice to evil."

Another example...Switzerland was (and is) a neutral country during WWII. Many Jews and other "undesireables" were able to escape across the mountains into Switzerland to escape the Nazis. Switzerland in their neutralility returned many of them back into German hands. One might argue that they were protecting their own people by doing this (which is true), but they were also sacrificing others to the Nazis to do this. Those people, as well as historians, might argue that they were "accomplices" of evil by their actions or inaction.

Unfortunately, due to my training, most of my examples would come from WWII, and this has already been discounted by an earlier post stating that God may have wanted the Nazis to win. So, take my thoughts for whatever they are worth. :cool:

Again, I'm not making this a statement of my own beliefs on pacificsm...so nobody jump all over me! :) I'm just trying to respond to Wilson.

[Billy Cox]

I'm not entering the fray on the pacifist issue, just trying to answer your very specific question.

Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain opted for "appeasement" of Hitler in hopes to avoid war with Germany. His reluctance to involve GB historically gave Hitler the green light to invade Poland. I would say that the Polish people (and most historians) would say that Chamberlain's Dove-ish behavior resulted in being an "accomplice to evil."

Another example...Switzerland was (and is) a neutral country during WWII. Many Jews and other "undesireables" were able to escape across the mountains into Switzerland to escape the Nazis. Switzerland in their neutralility returned many of them back into German hands. One might argue that they were protecting their own people by doing this (which is true), but they were also sacrificing others to the Nazis to do this. Those people, as well as historians, might argue that they were "accomplices" of evil by their actions or inaction.

Unfortunately, due to my training, most of my examples would come from WWII, and this has already been discounted by an earlier post stating that God may have wanted the Nazis to win. So, take my thoughts for whatever they are worth. :cool:

Again, I'm not making this a statement of my own beliefs on pacificsm...so nobody jump all over me! :) I'm just trying to respond to Wilson.

Yes, this is what I had in mind when I referred to pacifism as an accomplice to evil.

It seems that only this extreme example is sufficient to show as absurd the rose-colored worldview that characterizes pacifism.

[Kevin Rector]

Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain opted for "appeasement" of Hitler in hopes to avoid war with Germany. His reluctance to involve GB historically gave Hitler the green light to invade Poland. I would say that the Polish people (and most historians) would say that Chamberlain's Dove-ish behavior resulted in being an "accomplice to evil."

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it means that if someone can stop evil from happening and doesn't then that person is an "accomplice" to that evil. This would necessarily mean then that God is an accomplice to all evil because he has the capacity to stop all evil from happening and yet does not.


Another example...Switzerland was (and is) a neutral country during WWII. Many Jews and other "undesireables" were able to escape across the mountains into Switzerland to escape the Nazis. Switzerland in their neutralility returned many of them back into German hands.

Pacifism has at it's heart and soul the principle of compassion. To be compassionate is to stand with. That means the Swiss returning Jews to the hands of the Nazi's is very far removed from the principle of Christian pacifism. Neutrality is most definitely not the same thing as Christian pacifism.

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, this is what I had in mind when I referred to pacifism as an accomplice to evil.

It seems that only this extreme example is sufficient to show as absurd the rose-colored worldview that characterizes pacifism.

That is hardly a remark worthy of a serious discussion like this thread has shown.

First, extreme examples can be found to discredit any line of thinking.

Second, it would have shown the absurdity of our Lord's life as well.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm not entering the fray on the pacifist issue, just trying to answer your very specific question.

Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain opted for "appeasement" of Hitler in hopes to avoid war with Germany. His reluctance to involve GB historically gave Hitler the green light to invade Poland. I would say that the Polish people (and most historians) would say that Chamberlain's Dove-ish behavior resulted in being an "accomplice to evil."

Cindi, first we need to realize that without the treaty of Versailles after WWI, there would have been no Hitler. In the past, for instance at the Vienna Congress after Waterloo, the defeat of Napoleon, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, delegate of France, was allowed to be part of the negotiations. However, in 1919, the Germans were only allowed to sign a treaty that humiliated them to the core and helped strongly to bring about the crisis that proved such fertile soil for the Nazi's. Would there have been a Marshall plan as there was after WWII, things would have turned out very differently indeed. Quite a point in case for reconciliation with former enemies.

Secondly, Word War 2 started exactly because the British did not at all give green light to an invasion of Poland. It is there that the line was drawn and it it then that the war started, 1-9-1939. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in_Europe_.28September _1939_.E2.80.93_May_1940.29)

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, using the false pretext of a faked "Polish attack" on a German border post. The United Kingdom and France gave Germany two days to withdraw from Poland. Once the deadline passed on September 3, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany, followed quickly by France, South Africa and Canada.

[Cindi Hammons]

Hans,

I am well aware of the Treaty of Versailles and the issues surrounding Germany's humiliation. This treaty was a huge mistake and provided the atmosphere in which someone like Hitler could come to power. So, I really didn't need the lecture on WWII history.

Anyways, I'm vacating this thread on pacifism, because I don't feel strongly enough either way to voice an opinion.

[Kevin Rector]

Is an "innocent" person's life more valuable than a "wicked" persons?

I think this is a poor question.

I find that interesting as answering that question is absolutely central to this dialog.

Here's another question perhaps you will not find it so poor:

Did Jesus actually mean it when he said not to resist an evil person?

[Billy Cox]

Versailles was indeed a factor in giving rise to Nazism, but it is a stretch to say that a kinder and gentler treaty would have made any difference.

The Marshall Plan only came about as the result of the overwhelming destruction of most of Europe. It was also very much a hedge against the rise of Soviet influence in Europe. Altruism? I don't think so.

By the time Britain and France drew a line in the sand at Poland's borders, the situation was already out of control. France was barely willing to defend itself, let alone to take corrective action against Germany. Britain was barely any better off. Thus, the declaration of war by Britain and a few allies was little more than symbolism.

World War II was in full swing long before Britain and France acknowledged it.

[Billy Cox]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it means that if someone can stop evil from happening and doesn't then that person is an "accomplice" to that evil. This would necessarily mean then that God is an accomplice to all evil because he has the capacity to stop all evil from happening and yet does not.

God has chosen to honor free will, so this line of reasoning doesn't establish anything.


Pacifism has at it's heart and soul the principle of compassion. To be compassionate is to stand with. That means the Swiss returning Jews to the hands of the Nazi's is very far removed from the principle of Christian pacifism. Neutrality is most definitely not the same thing as Christian pacifism.

Sometimes 'standing with' means doing whatever it takes, including force, to resist evil.

[Chris Baker]

It occurs to me that at the crux of this issue is a question of competing loves. In some ways, it comes down to this: What do we do when our love for neighbor and our love for enemy tells us to do two different things?

Our love for neighbor tells us to defend them and in extreme cases to perhaps use violence. Our love for enemy (perhaps) tells us to not use violence in any case. Both loves are legitimate--indeed, commanded by God. Isn't the central question the question of how to reconcile these two loves with each other?

[Hans Deventer]

So, I really didn't need the lecture on WWII history.

If it felt like a lecture, I apologize.

[Kevin Rector]

God has chosen to honor free will, so this line of reasoning doesn't establish anything.

Billy, the position was taken that those who do not stop the evil that when they can are accomplices to that evil. Saying that God honors free will simply give a reason why he might not stop all evil from occuring.

This does not negate the fact that if you believe that those who could stop evil and don't are accomplices to evil then you must also necessarily believe that God is an accomplice of evil (regardless of his reasons for doing so).

If God is not an accomplice to evil when he does not stop it then neither are his followers.

[Billy Cox]

Perhaps God is an accomplice to evil in the interest of a higher good?

[Kevin Rector]

Perhaps God is an accomplice to evil in the interest of a higher good?

Perhaps, and so perhaps are Christian pacifists accomplices to evil inasmuch as they consider it to be for a higher good.

Or perhaps only those who are wicked are responsible for their evil.

Either way opens the door for pacifism to be a viable way of life.

[Billy Cox]

Perhaps, and so perhaps are Christian pacifists accomplices to evil inasmuch as they consider it to be for a higher good.

Or perhaps only those who are wicked are responsible for their evil.

Either way opens the door for pacifism to be a viable way of life.

In practice, I am a pragmatic pacifist. Finding peaceful resolution to conflict in my world is a no-brainer when one considers the consequences of violence and intimidation. It is however an untested pacifism.

I have doubts that pacifism is viable outside the realm of personal piety and conviction.

[Hans Deventer]

It occurs to me that at the crux of this issue is a question of competing loves. In some ways, it comes down to this: What do we do when our love for neighbor and our love for enemy tells us to do two different things?

Our love for neighbor tells us to defend them and in extreme cases to perhaps use violence. Our love for enemy (perhaps) tells us to not use violence in any case. Both loves are legitimate--indeed, commanded by God. Isn't the central question the question of how to reconcile these two loves with each other?

Chris, I think this is an excellent question and I don't understand why no one has answered yet. In an attempt to do so, I am a little doubtful, but does anyone here know about the use of violence in defending others by Christians in the first 3 centuries? I have never read about it but that fact is of course not conclusive, it merely says something about my limited reading.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I have doubts that pacifism is viable outside the realm of personal piety and conviction.

Interesting observation. Neither is it running rampant within the realm of personal piety and conviction.

[Hans Deventer]

Versailles was indeed a factor in giving rise to Nazism, but it is a stretch to say that a kinder and gentler treaty would have made any difference.

Just bought me the BBC documentary "The Nazi's, A Warning From History". I don't think it is a stretch. Chaos breeds the need for dictators, and chaos was strongly enhanced by the Versailles treaty. The treaty gave birth to the Nazi party.

The Marshall Plan only came about as the result of the overwhelming destruction of most of Europe. It was also very much a hedge against the rise of Soviet influence in Europe. Altruism? I don't think so.

I haven't said it was. I did mean to say it was a whole lot wiser than the Versailles treaty. It is wiser to turn an enemy into an friend than to humiliate him. A point where sheer common sense aligns with the gospel.

By the time Britain and France drew a line in the sand at Poland's borders, the situation was already out of control. France was barely willing to defend itself, let alone to take corrective action against Germany. Britain was barely any better off. Thus, the declaration of war by Britain and a few allies was little more than symbolism.

Symbolic enough to have them enter the war.

World War II was in full swing long before Britain and France acknowledged it.

??? You may need to elaborate this point. I don't understand it.

[Billy Cox]

Just bought me the BBC documentary "The Nazi's, A Warning From History". I don't think it is a stretch. Chaos breeds the need for dictators, and chaos was strongly enhanced by the Versailles treaty. The treaty gave birth to the Nazi party.

Hitler seemed able to manufacture crises when it suited him. The real effect of Versailles is debatable since Germany really didn't comply with the terms of reparation and the League of Nations lacked the power to prevent violation of the treaty by either the allies or Germany.


I haven't said it was. I did mean to say it was a whole lot wiser than the Versailles treaty. It is wiser to turn an enemy into an friend than to humiliate him. A point where sheer common sense aligns with the gospel.

True, the Marshall Plan was a brilliant response to the political realities at the end of WWII - most of which were unrelated to Germany itself. Europe would be a very different place today had another Versailles-type treaty been implemented.

[Dale Cozby]

Chris, I think this is an excellent question and I don't understand why no one has answered yet. In an attempt to do so, I am a little doubtful, but does anyone here know about the use of violence in defending others by Christians in the first 3 centuries? I have never read about it but that fact is of course not conclusive, it merely says something about my limited reading.

Hans, I think the problem with it being something note worthy in history during the first three centuries might be because it would happen on the personal level. It was so common sense to people that it wasn't worth describing as a "Christian" action.

If the Roman state came to arrest you and your family you offered no resistence and went peacefully to your death if that was your fate.
But, if a thief broke in then you would do what comes as a matter of direct reaction to immediate harm. You would react to protect your family from imminent harm. The difference is in the premeditation of it all.

I think Christian defensive actions most liikely came in the form of immediate reaction to a situation rather than as premeditated action.

Premeditated defensive actions would be to seek refuge or to disperse to other places as the first course of action if persecuted. Not taking up arms.

Eventually, this defensive posture in Christian communities was manifest in the feudal system with the building of baileys.

Prominent people would build towers and baileys to protect thier families and workers and communities from the raiding "Vandals". They weren't offensive, at all, but rather defensive in nature. Rather than surrender to the raiders, they resisted in the absence of a strong state that enforced its laws. As Rome became corrupt and weak, the need for personal defense rose and hence feudalism.

[Hans Deventer]

I am watching the 3-DVD BBC documentary "The Nazi's - A Warning From History" (http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Warning-History-Samuel-West/dp/B00097DY66) these days. And I could not help but think that God apparently did not see the protection His children as a priority, considering the murdering of 6 million Jews (let alone the other 49 million deaths)
That attitude can only make sense if He sees some higher goal. What does that say for us?

Jesus did not promise us safety. He promised death and persecution. He told us we need to lose our lives in order to find true life. Only in very rare occasions throughout history did God intervene for the protection of His people.

If this is what God is like and we are to follow in His footsteps, what does that tell us?

Watching this documentary strengthened for me the idea that even civilized people, given time and opportunity, are able to commit the worst atrocities. It seems throughout history, the true battle is for the mind and won't eve be won by force and that being born again has a lot to do with a total change in priorities.

[Randy Wise]

I am watching the 3-DVD BBC documentary "The Nazi's - A Warning From History" (http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Warning-History-Samuel-West/dp/B00097DY66) these days. And I could not help but think that God apparently did not see the protection His children as a priority, considering the murdering of 6 million Jews (let alone the other 49 million deaths)


God made a new covenant with the house of israel and the house of judah and that covenant relationship is established only through the Son. Apart from Jesus no one is in a covenant relationship with God. The desendents of jacob who believed in the new covenant if they stayed in the faith are called christians in this day and age because Jesus who is called Christ is the mediator of the new covenant.



Randy

[Hans Deventer]

God made a new covenant with the house of israel and the house of judah and that covenant relationship is established only through the Son. Apart from Jesus no one is in a covenant relationship with God. The desendents of jacob who believed in the new covenant if they stayed in the faith are called christians in this day and age because Jesus who is called Christ is the mediator of the new covenant.

Oh gracious, I don't even believe my own eyes. Do we really have to go down this road?

This is the kind of thinking that fuelled anti-Semitism and pogroms through the ages, that murdered the 6 million, and is totally contrary to the Scriptures.

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin

And who are "his people"?

So, with this discussion behind us, can we now return to the real subject of my post?

[Randy Wise]

Oh gracious, I don't even believe my own eyes. Do we really have to go down this road?

This is the kind of thinking that fuelled anti-Semitism and pogroms through the ages, that murdered the 6 million, and is totally contrary to the Scriptures.

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin

And who are "his people"?

So, with this discussion behind us, can we now return to the real subject of my post?

Which part didn't you believe? Jesus never mistreated anyone and it is His command to love one another, but Jesus remained firm in His message to those that didn't believe in Him that they had no life in themselves. Who did God make the new covenant with? That covenant replaced the previous covenant and is available to all people, which includes those that currently practice Judiasm if they believe and call on the Lord Jesus. Jesus is able to save forever those that com to God through HIM as I stated that covenant relationship is established only through Jesus.
Randy

[Randy Wise]

Randy, one LAST remark. I was NOT talking about a covenant!!!!!!!!! Not about their salvation, not about Jesus' relationship to His people (He was a Jew, remember?) etc etc etc. Can I get that message through to you? I was talking about "His people", as Romans 11:1 clearly states that is what they are. Period. And that is my last word on this specific subject that I did not want to discuss anyway.

And by the way, if that wasn't clear, I really hate it when I post a very serious topic and it gets hijacked this way.


Please define "His" people. How does God separate this group of people as separate from all the other people on earth as you called them Gods children in your earlier post?
Randy

[Martijn van Beveren]

I am watching the 3-DVD BBC documentary "The Nazi's - A Warning From History" (http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Warning-History-Samuel-West/dp/B00097DY66) these days. And I could not help but think that God apparently did not see the protection His children as a priority, considering the murdering of 6 million Jews (let alone the other 49 million deaths)
That attitude can only make sense if He sees some higher goal. What does that say for us?

Jesus did not promise us safety. He promised death and persecution. He told us we need to lose our lives in order to find true life. Only in very rare occasions throughout history did God intervene for the protection of His people.

If this is what God is like and we are to follow in His footsteps, what does that tell us?

Watching this documentary strengthened for me the idea that even civilized people, given time and opportunity, are able to commit the worst atrocities. It seems throughout history, the true battle is for the mind and won't eve be won by force and that being born again has a lot to do with a total change in priorities.

Well, I'll better hook in on this part of the thread because I just fail to see the use of further talking about missing the point there, anyway...

My guess on this matter is that Jesus shows us a way to make the world a better place. A vision of a good earth. though as long as we have been trying to make this a better world, we also tend trust on our own understanding, and fail to get past our ego.

So as soon as we start talking about leaving behind the things we hold more dear than our neighbor(stranger/friend/brother/sister), Christ and God, there will be trouble. Some are just not willing to leave their comfort zone. Why should I? I can take care of myself, I don't need to help anyone. Or it even can go the wrong way. just some examples... If he steals, I can steal (just fill in the blanks); Hey if they can shoot or use violence on tv, I can too; if I just make more money, there is more for me, so I can buy more, so I need more money so I ... :fun04

Jesus kingdom is a part of this world, as long as we are willing to see it and be a part of it. It can be better when we decide to get our priority's straight and go do something else than for example: all week in front of the TV, or having a 24/7 career.:fav02
Being a part of the world gives meaning to our spiritual life. Caring, loving, giving hope to a world where there is none. Building the kingdom right here right now.

greetzzz,
Marty;)

[Randy Wise]

I am watching the 3-DVD BBC documentary "The Nazi's - A Warning From History" (http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Warning-History-Samuel-West/dp/B00097DY66) these days. And I could not help but think that God apparently did not see the protection His children as a priority, considering the murdering of 6 million Jews (let alone the other 49 million deaths)
That attitude can only make sense if He sees some higher goal. What does that say for us?

Jesus did not promise us safety. He promised death and persecution. He told us we need to lose our lives in order to find true life. Only in very rare occasions throughout history did God intervene for the protection of His people.

If this is what God is like and we are to follow in His footsteps, what does that tell us?

Watching this documentary strengthened for me the idea that even civilized people, given time and opportunity, are able to commit the worst atrocities. It seems throughout history, the true battle is for the mind and won't eve be won by force and that being born again has a lot to do with a total change in priorities.

You made a statement that Jesus promised death and persecution. My Jesus preached eternal life and that He would never leave me.
You made a statement that God doesn't care for His people. I thought Hans owes the HOLY ONE of Israel, my heavenly Father a apology. God has always shown a loving kindness to those who love and obey Him. In this day and age under the new covenant practicing Judaism doesn't make you God's people. Accepting Jesus Christ does. God has always shown Himself HOLY. Maybe you should reread Gods reply to Job.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Randy, I wish you peace.

[Randy Wise]

Randy, I wish you peace.

Hans,
Grace and peace to you as well
Randy

[Dale Cozby]

Aw...C'mon guys get in there and mix it up some more about being a pacifist. Don't kiss and make up now. :basic03 j/k

[Kevin Rector]

Aw...C'mon guys get in there and mix it up some more about being a pacifist. Don't kiss and make up now. :basic03 j/k

Ah yes... blessed are the peacemakers indeed. :basic02 (j/k too)

[Hans Deventer]

Aw...C'mon guys get in there and mix it up some more about being a pacifist. Don't kiss and make up now. :basic03 j/k

Well, continue the discussion! Be it Jews in WW2 or Christians in the 20th century (I understand more Christians have been killed in the 20th century than in all the centuries before taken together), the point remains the same: God doesn't seem very interested in saving His people from physical harm. Should it be our first priority then?

I can't help but think that the peace the Lord offers is indeed a different one:

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

Otherwise, why the consolation not to be afraid? If I have the world's peace, there is no reason to be afraid.

But we're not promised the peace of the world, on the contrary:

Matt 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

[Dale Cozby]

Hans is absolutely right. If Christians were all pacifists it wouldn't hurt the cause of Christ. Would it?

1. IF evil men killed every last one of us, He could raise up stones to proclaim Him. So he really doesn't need us at all here.
2. We are all going to die and after that the judgement, So if evil men speed that process up, what does it really matter? To live is Christ to die is gain.
3. If some are going to perish and go to hell and others die and go to heaven, who are we to try and stop evil from killing us all? As the saying goes: "Kill them all and let God sort them out, He will know His own"
4. IF we should want to keep anyone from dying it would be people who are going to hell right? I mean I wouldn"t wish that on anyone. So better for Christians to all die than to kill the evil and send them to hell. Right?
5. The sooner evil takes over the entire world the sooner Jesus comes back, so why oppose them?
6. By being a willing martyr(taking up our Cross) we show how much we hate our kids, our wives and our very lives in favor of Jesus Christ.
7. It is a much simpler way to live. I mean if you already know before hand you will do nothing to stop evil, then you won't sweat all those hard choices later on when faced with evil, death and mayhem.

"those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.... at that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." So I rest my case.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Hans is absolutely right. If Christians were all pacifists it wouldn't hurt the cause of Christ. Would it?

1. IF evil men killed every last one of us, He could raise up stones to proclaim Him. So he really doesn't need us at all here.

True.

2. We are all going to die and after that the judgement, So if evil men speed that process up, what does it really matter? To live is Christ to die is gain.

Again, true.

Matth 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

3. If some are going to perish and go to hell and others die and go to heaven, who are we to try and stop evil from killing us all? As the saying goes: "Kill them all and let God sort them out, He will know His own"

No, we just think we should let God deal with those who choose to "Kill them all...."

Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[a]says the Lord.

4. If we should want to keep anyone from dying it would be people who are going to hell right? I mean I wouldn"t wish that on anyone. So better for Christians to all die than to kill the evil and send them to hell. Right?

Exactly. Reminds me of Jesus' attitude. He could have called legions to destroy the world and give us what we deserve but instead chose to let us crucify him that we might be saved.

5. The sooner evil takes over the entire world the sooner Jesus comes back, so why oppose them?

You have it backwards. When even Christians kill to protect property, rights, etc., evil grows. A response of love is like yeast or a mustard seed. A non-violent response ultimatley defeats evil, perhaps speeding Jesus' return. (We're told he is patient wanting all to come to repentance...)

6. By being a willing martyr(taking up our Cross) we show how much we hate our kids, our wives and our very lives in favor of Jesus Christ.

True in the sense that Jesus meant it, but not in the way you probably meant it.

7. It is a much simpler way to live. I mean if you already know before hand you will do nothing to stop evil, then you won't sweat all those hard choices later on when faced with evil, death and mayhem.

Again you are confused. It isn't a matter of doing "nothing to stop evil." It is a matter of fighting evil with love. It is defeating evil by turning the other cheek and walking the extra mile. Have you ever watched a movie or something where a pacifist refuses to fight and takes the blows? That is hardly the simple, easy approach. No, I think if someone hit me, the easy, simple approach would be to hit back. Taking the blow and loving the perpetrator would be the difficult course. As MLK put it, "You can't fight darkness with darkness." Fighting evil with violence is trying to do just that. Fighting evil with love is fighting darkness with light.

"those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.... at that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens."

I fail to see the revelance of this passage to this discussion.

So I rest my case.

Good.

Wilson

[Stan Self]

Whew!! For a minute there I thought someone was going to suggest vats of Kool Aid be mixed up so we could all just get this life over with.;)

[Hans Deventer]

Whew!! For a minute there I thought someone was going to suggest vats of Kool Aid be mixed up so we could all just get this life over with.;)

No, but I did buy me a box of 7 DVD's, all together 159 Tom & Jerry shows, in order to deeper investigate the issue of pacifism. :basic05

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Have any of the people in this discussion ever read a scripture that says for us to not cast our pearls before swine? If so, would someone please expound on it. I believe it is in Matthew 7:6.

[Lance Schmitz]

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

pearls before swine, Cast not