I've found something worth dying for. (My Christian non-violence support of the non-aggression principal.)

in #pacifism8 years ago (edited)

My Beliefs

In the limited experiences I’ve had debating pacifism, it seems like a lot of the arguments used toward the just war philosophy are based primarily on Old Testament examples, misquoted or context-avoiding New Testament passages or by using statements made by other men (men being the generic word used when talking about men and women, created persons). My beliefs about pacifism have been with me for a long time, though admittedly they had taken a back seat to my pride as an American citizen for a while. Ultimately I was brought back around to realizing pacifism is where my heart really is thanks mostly to Shane Claiborne’s wonderful book “The Irresistible Revolution”. While his book was a catalyst to my renewed devotion to non-violence he was certainly not the reason for my steadfastness.

While the “W.W.J.D.” question has become something of a cliche about how ridiculously Americanized the church has become, if done without the bracelet and with sincerity and an open mind to be taught, it can cause you to be a huge change in your world.

For the sake of being as legitimately G-d inspired as I can be, I’m going to keep myself to using strictly Biblical sources for my side of this debate.

Now I know some (probably most) have a rather differing opinion of war. I know plenty of people, whose salvation I could not even pretend to doubt, that would consider my wife and I to have “gone off the deep end”. Many of the opinions opposed to ours relate specifically to the ownership of guns and the use of violence against forces of the government that would want to disarm them/impede on their freedoms as American citizens. My question to this is, “Do you really have the right, as a professing Christian, to defend yourself against someone else with violence?” I understand that the ideas of self defense and war in the sense of going over seas to attack another country are very different, but the use of violence in either circumstance is still violence.

In Matthew 5:39 Jesus says:

“But I tell you, don’t stand up against an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also.”

That doesn’t sound to me like He’s giving us the right to defend ourselves. He says rather plainly “DO NOT stand up against an evil person”. He doesn’t say, “If someone slaps you on the right cheek, put your hand up to block your left cheek then break their hand so they can’t try again”. We are to turn the other cheek and allow the attacker to strike us again. What right do we have to defend ourselves against a human attacker when Jesus rebuked Peter for attacking the Roman in the garden of Gethsemane? The Savior of the world, the human embodiment of G-d himself would not allow His disciple to defend Him with violence, so how could we possibly claim to have the right to defend ourselves against anyone with violence?

As I said at the beginning of this post, I know there are plenty of Biblically based counter-arguments to my stance, but I’d like to suggest we look at some of the totality of what is usually used. One of the most commonly used verses is in Luke’s version of the night Jesus is arrested…

“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” -Luke 22:36

Now, the strange part about using this verse with the declaration that, “SEE! Jesus tells them to buy a sword!” is that Yeshua doesn’t tell them how or when to use the sword. In fact the only time we hear about the sword being used by the disciples is shortly after this conversation when Peter attacks a Roman soldier with it. Right after Peter attacks the Roman Yeshua stops him and says to him:

“No more of this!” -Luke 22:51

After yelling at Peter for using the sword Christ heals the soldier of the wound that was inflicted! It seems insane to me that the apostles would be told to purchase a sword and then when the first opportunity to use it comes up, they are told not to! Shouldn’t that in itself discredit the referencing of that verse as a reference FOR the use of violence as a means of defending a friend/family member? I know, “Christ had to suffer his death on the cross and that’s why He stopped Peter from defending Him!” While I agree, Christ had to die for us and any other course of history at this second in time would drastically change the story of salvation (there wouldn’t be one), I like to believe Yeshua told the apostles to buy the sword specifically for the purpose of illustrating the idea that He didn’t want them to use it!

The Counter

The most common way people debate against pacifism in the Christian sense is the idea of “just war”. This philosophy says there are ways that you can justify war when considering what you are getting involved in by holding it up against a set of guidelines and as long as your planned war falls within those, it is a “just” or fair war, and therefore allowable. When I hear people arguing for just war, I hear a lot of Old Testament quotes and other famous people espousing the criteria that makes war just, but these lists aren’t directly based out of Biblical principle or instruction. Unfortunately, most of what I’ve seen discussed as the list of things to check off to judge whether your war truly is “just” are fabricated by men that believe they have come to a logical conclusion based on moral truths and not on something given in scripture.

So to backtrack a little, I believe that G-d’s call for violence in the Old Testament is only justified in the Old Testament because of man’s separation from Him. While G-d did call for Israel to go to war throughout it, the need for man fighting man has been negated by the death of the Son. Yeshua says He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Therefore whatever rules were put in place in the OT have been dubbed fulfilled through the blood of Christ! We are no longer bound to serve the punishment as the old law required. Unfortunately plenty of people still refer to the G-d of violence as expressed in the OT as implying necessity for violence today, in effect telling Yeshua they don’t care about what He did. I dare to liken the people who keep this going to the Jews that brought Stephen up on blasphemy charges. As Stephen was preaching the gospel, those in attendance disliked his message that the Old Testament was fulfilled and finalized in the new covenant. His response to their hardened hearts against the gospel was:

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” -Acts 7:51-53

I know that sounds a little harsh, but is it really wrong? How often do we ALL decide not to listen to the Holy Spirit? The day that I confessed to my wife about my secret pornography addiction was spent arguing with the Spirit and trying to find a way out of telling her!

A man named Saul was in attendance at Stephen’s death for preaching these “blasphemies”. Saul actually brags about being there to witness the stoning of Stephen. Through the marvelous grace of G-d, Saul becomes converted through the power of Christ to become become the man who, ironically enough, writes a letter to the church in Corinth saying things very similar to what I can imagine Stephen was saying:

“Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which is being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it…Yes, to this day when Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.” -2 Corinthians 3:7-10, 15

So the idea of following the words of the Christ over the historical obsession with the OT teachings is nothing new.

Other Angles

One of the most interesting arguments I’ve heard to discredit a pacifist is the idea that a pacifist thinks they are on par with Yeshua by expecting to behave the same way He did at His trial. The argument says something along the lines of, “You devalue what Christ did on the cross be expecting you will do what He did!” Personally this sounds absurd to me. If this were the case, what would be the value in doing anything Christ asked us to? Christ instructed us with how to pray. Just about every follower of Christ knows His prayer by heart. Does repeating that prayer word-for-word as He delivered it devalue what He prayed? Of course not! Not only does the Son tell us to do the things he does, he also tells us we will do GREATER things than him!

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” -John 14:12

If Yeshua tells us to do the things he did and even greater things, would that not show the argument of trying to be like him and devaluing his sacrifice to be completely destroyed?

Now the complaint I’ve heard most often against pacifists is this idea that we have a holier-than-thou attitude and we think anyone who has/is/will serve/d in the armed forces is in the midst of some unforgivable sin and that we look down on these people. I’d just like to say that the idea of pacifism exists to express the complete opposite. For me, the claim to pacifism is a means for me to express how fallen my nature is. It keeps me mindful of the things I still do wrong. Not a single person alive is able to say they have no sin in them. Because of this, no one has any right to judge anyone else as less worthy to approach the throne. Every person that has existed since the death of Yeshua has had the same opportunity to be reconciled to the Father and no living person has the right to say anyone else has lost that.

And lastly, for the sake of wrapping up, I’d like to put out a couple more sections of scripture that can be included in the support of a Biblically pacifist lifestyle:

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” -Romans 12:19-20 (While plenty of people know the “vengeance is mine” part of this I very rarely hear people use it in context to the rest of the section which talks about blessing those who persecute you and not repaying evil for evil.)

“Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And

‘If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?’

Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.” -1 Peter 4:12-19 (I think this section is just loaded with goodness. We are told to avoid suffering as a murderer or meddler, and that we should willfully suffer as a follower of the Christ. While I’m sure plenty of people stretch it’s meaning to something other than what’s at face value, I like to apply the last verse to trusting G-d with our souls during any kind of suffering.)

While the main debate for or against pacifism is based on whether or not to go to war, there is much more involved. In a statement that will win me plenty of criticism, I’m sure, the modern American evangelical church has been lead dangerously astray from the heart of the gospel. We are to love our enemies, care for the poor, but instead we build our high castles of finances and self-worth. The world is so much bigger than the borders of our country and our decisions about war affect the very people we have been commissioned to spread the gospel to. I’d like to ask, how does war, regardless of how just we make it to be, help us fulfill the great commission?

“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” -Joshua 24:14-15


This is actually an older post I did on a blog my wife and I share from almost three and a half years ago. You can find the original post here.

Sort:  

A very well done, Bible based post.
I mostly agree with it.
But, I'd love to hear what you make of the following verses.

Matt 10:34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have 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.…

Revelation 13:10
"If anyone is destined for captivity, into captivity he will go; If anyone is to die by the sword, by the sword he must be killed." Here is a call for the perseverance and faith of the saints.

I will also point out that this example is a special case. Jesus told Peter to put his sword away in this case because:

  1. He didn't need his help
  2. He was supposed to be arrested

52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

So I don't think this negates Jesus saying to buy a sword. You only need a sword for one purpose - to defend yourself.

That's against deadly force not against being slapped in the face.

Just my 2 BitShares.

Thanks for the kinds words. As two the first two quotes, there is some debate about the word "sword" in Matthew 10:34. I actually have another post where I describe some of the issue with how a lot of people picture what he's talking about. The Greek word is "machaira" and it's used to describe a small sword. Some people have posited it may have been almost more decorative than used as an actual weapon of war.

Revelation 13:10, I've always taken that as something of a rally cry to the believers that some of them would have to die by the sword, and that they should. That section is describing a time when the first beast will rule so it's certainly not talking about a victorious church killing those that need to be killed. In some ways it could be used to strengthen the position that if someone is trying to kill you with a sword that it should happen, or just that Christians should be outside of war and allow the people led astray by the beast to kill those they are trying to.

As to the stuff from Luke 22, I agree that Jesus was supposed to be arrested and that he certainly didn't need anyone's help, but if this is the reason for him telling Peter to put the sword away, why did he never instruct when the right time would be? There was never a, "and the time will come after I have gone to my Father that the unbelievers will take up their weapons against you and in this time you shall defend your brothers and sisters in my name." Even beyond the story there, if Jesus intended the apostles to use the sword(s) in self defense, why did they never use them? Would not Stephen have been justified in using a sword during his unjust trial and execution? I understand and agree that Jesus never blatantly says not to take part in war, but we have the example of all of his closest followers that never used violence in their own defense, and all the apostles save one died because of martyrdom. Considering this, I find it genuinely hard to justify violence when the examples of people we are to live like never do.

I appreciate the questions. I love discussing this topic in particular, even though it's usually a very big hot-button issue.

Good points.
Jesus didn't criticize several Christian centurions for their occupation.
Stephen was submitting to the governing authorities in the Romans 13 sense - which also authorized them to bear the sword.
Still "Take a purse and a bag and sell your cloak for a sword" is a command to each individual being sent out into the mission field" since it follows a reference to the last time he sent them out two by two. So part of their standard missionary equipment was a way to defend themselves along the way. More important than a cloak on a cold night!

I think the wars the US engages in today mostly have to do with oil rights than self defense. Wouldn't it be great if people tore down walls and left other governments alone? The higher the walls, the more resentment arises, and resentful people get bigger guns.

I am curious, though, what you'd recommend for someone whose child is being hurt. Jesus said it would be better for a milstone to be hung around the neck of a person who abused a child, and be drowned.

Obviously we as parents would do our best to keep our children safe, avoid such dangers, but that is not always possible. How would you defend your son or daughter?

Yeah, the wars the U.S. gets involved with are especially ridiculous.

As to protecting my kids, the only way I can answer is that I "hope" I will be the person I want to be if I'm ever in that situation. My mindset is such that "hurting people hurt people" so I would want to care for an abuser as much as I would my kids. I wouldn't allow my children anywhere near them again, but I don't believe I would jump to violence. It's a tough line, because we can say all we want about how we would behave, but none of us know until we're actually in that situation. I was abused as a kid and I don't harbor any anger or resentment. I hope that my experience would be beneficial at being pre-emptive so my kids never end up in that kind of situation to begin with.

I am glad too see you writing about this and putting it on Steemit.

Thanks. The post itself is a little old, but I still totally agree with the sentiment I wrote in it.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.13
JST 0.029
BTC 57824.98
ETH 3133.87
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.42