Discussion with a Christian pacifist

Ivanhoe · #1 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007, 07:49 PM

I am currently in a discussion (on another message board) with a self-described Christian pacifist. He takes the Yoder/Hauerwas approach.

My current line of response is:

P1: In Romans 13 the civil magistrate is given divine backing (we can talk about instances where civil disobedience would be justifiable later).

P2: The civil magistrate is given the use of the sword.

C1:Therefore, the sword has divine backing (properly applied)

From that I would argue that violence is legitimate. Of course I can throw the usual theonomic bombs, but I am not in "shock mode" at the moment. If anyone is interested for the link, PM me since I don't want to turn this into a "board war."

Pilgrim · #2 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007, 08:00 PM

I would add that Jesus and John the Baptizer did not tell the Roman soldiers they came into contact with to get out of the army. Assuming this is the board I think it is, I may log in myself and join the discussions.

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007, 08:37 PM

that's a good point. yeah, same board.

Pilgrim · #4 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007, 10:11 PM

I mean after all, what is an army for? One could certainly point out inept armies throughout history but I don't know of any that were formed for the purpose of nonviolence.

Pilgrim · #5 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007, 10:16 PM

I was in a Christian bookstore today and was flipping through Christian Jihad. Even the anabaptistic Caner bros. go on record as supporting the current actions in Afghanistan and Iraq while of course many others from other viewpoints oppose the Iraq war. A discussion on when war is justifiable would be much more interesting to me.

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 07-06-2007, 10:30 PM

Arthur Holmes edited a book on Christian Readings on War. It looked good. I aw it in RTS bookstore.

non dignus · #7 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 01:26 AM

I learned to be a pacifist very early on in my christian walk. The first leak in my perspective however, which eventually sank that ship, was the successful deployment of the Patriot anti-missile defense system used in the Persian Gulf war. These anti-missiles shot down larger long range missiles targeting civilians in Israel.

Up to that time, I had believed that in no way could a Christian wear an army uniform since his allegiance was only to the Army of the Lord. But the idea of manning a purely defensive missile system could not be impugned by any decent Christian. That was the beginning of the end for my pacifism. I was also sort of angry that there wasn't better support in the Bible for my feelings of what Christianity should be!

Mathetes · #8 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 03:37 AM

Steve Hays once touched on pacifism when dealing with some Anabaptist topics:

Quote:

But the modern-day denial of separatism also calls into question the remaining commitment to pacifism inasmuch as pacifism was embedded in separatism. The argument for pacifism was that the Christian didn’t have a vested interest in the world; as such, he didn’t fight for the state because the state represents an extension of the world. But if a modern Anabaptist now proclaims his stake in the world, then he has had gone over to the Constantinian side.

The remaining difference is then that the Pilgrim conquers Canaan with the Gospel of grace, whereas the new school Anabaptist conquers Canaan with the social gospel.

Besides the separatist accent, wherever that still stands, is the pacifist accent. And here the Anabaptist takes his cue from the Sermon on the Mount—the assumption being that the Sermon on the Mount represents a radical shift from OT to NT ethics.

But this is a problematic move. To begin with, the Anabaptist is very fond of the Sixth Commandment. But even if this justified his pacifist stance, it would do so on the warrant of OT ethics.

It should also be obvious that the Sixth Commandment does not underwrite nonviolence. In the cases law there were no fewer than 16 capital offenses. The law also acknowledges justifiable homicide in the case of the nighttime intruder (Exod 22:2). And, of course, there are the provisions for holy war (Deut 20).

But going back to the Sermon on the Mount, it is unclear just why, on the face of it, we should treat this sermon as the inaugural address of the New Covenant. For the subject-matter doesn’t invite that expectation. We would expect a transition from the Old to the New Covenant to discontinue the ceremonial law rather than the moral law. Of course, God is always free to confound our expectations, but where the Gospel of Matthew expressly signals a covenantal shift, the subject-matter confirms our prior expectations —for Christ is there fulfilling the ceremonial law (26:28) and inaugurating the New Covenant foreseen and forecast by Jeremiah.

In addition, Mt 5:17-19 reads like a formula of covenant renewal, sealed with the inscriptional curse (cf. Deut 4:2; 12:32). So this would lay heavy emphasis on covenantal continuity.

It is easy for the modern reader to forget that the Sermon on the Mount was addressed to Jews, not Christians—to Jews still living under the Old Covenant. So we need to distinguish between the historic viewpoint of Jesus and the narrative viewpoint of Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew is addressed to Christians (or Messianic Jews), but not the Sermon on the Mount.

Are there any reasons for treating the Sermon on the Mount as both an exposition of the New Covenant and abrogation of the Old? Two reasons are commonly adduced. First, we have the antitheses of 5:21-48. And the oft-made assumption is that this voids the Old Covenant.

But that inference, while possible, overdraws the evidence. Laws can be repealed without repealing the covenant. For example, Deut 12:5,14 repeals Exod 20:24-26, yet Deuteronomy is a document of covenant renewal. In transitioning from a nomadic existence in the wilderness to a settled existence in Canaan, there was a corresponding adjustment in particular provisions of the law. Likewise, the situation of Jews living under pagan occupation (the Roman Empire) was quite different from the situation of pagans living under Jewish occupation (the conquest of Canaan), so certain adaptations are called for, viz., the Roman custom of impressment (Mt 5:41).

Second, it is often said that Mt 5-7 presents Jesus as a second Moses. Moses delivered the Law from Mt. Sinai, and Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount. Now there is no doubt that Mosaic-typology is in play here.

However, the ministry of Moses is associated with more than one mountain, and is, in particular, book-ended by two mountains. So which figure is in view—the revelation of the covenant at the foothills of Horeb, or the renewal of the covenant at the foothills of Nebo? Given the parallel between the beatitudes of Jesus (Mt 5:2-12) and beatitudes of Moses (Deut 33:1-19), the Deuteronomic setting makes for a closer fit.
Or take Mt 5:9, which is a summa of the Anabaptist position. There are two problems with this appeal:
i) There is a difference between a peacemaker and a peacetalker or pacifist. Nonresistance, flower-power, pretty speeches, love beads and peace signs do not effect peace on earth. They don't prevent war and they don't end war. In fact, makarioß was "usually applied to emperors," not to men who merely "live in peace, practicing nonresistance, but those who actually bring about peace," D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 1996), 113.
ii) Jesus' injunction is grounded, not in a distinctive NT ethic, but OT ethics (cf. Ps 34:14; Isa 52:7; Prov 10:10, LXX).
iii) The Anabaptist fails to harmonize 5:9 with 10:34. Perhaps they would spiritualize 10:34. But why spiritualize 10:34 while taking 5:9 literally? Moreover, the opposition in view in 10:34 certain envisions actual violence in the persecution and martyrdom of Christian believers.

Another problem with playing off one Testament against the other is that the divine warrior-motif is common to both, and Christ is heir to both. Assuming Josh 5:13-15 to be a Christophany, the Captain of the Host is a warlord, and not merely in metaphor. And this has its counterpart in the knight on the white horse who leads the saints into battle (Rev 19:11-16). It is also striking that the author of Hebrews, although distinguished by his heavenly-mindedness, commends the martial exploits of the Judges (11:32).

In addition, the way we come out of Door #3 depends on how we came out of Door #2. There is a natural relation between Anabaptist ethics and Anabaptist soteriology. If you deny an Augustinian view of sin and grace, then that entails a more hopeful view of human nature. Pacifism is prized on optimism. But if you believe that every impulse of the graceless heart is bent on evil all the time (Gen 6:5), then that fails to lay a very firm foundation for a policy of passive resistance. Indeed, Anabaptism is almost Manichean in its radical dualism between the church and the world. But if the world is irredeemably evil, then how is a policy of peaceful coexistence even possible?

Now the Anabaptist might reply that he preaches nonviolence, not because it is a winning strategy, but because it is the price of discipleship. And we must admit that martyrdom is often the cost of following Christ.

But there are situations in which the very survival of the Church is at stake. An entire book of the Bible is devoted to such a threat, and the covenant community was only able to save itself by launching a massive preemptive strike (Est 9:16). And it should be unnecessary to note that the enemies of the NT church are just as ruthless as the enemies of the OT church. Sin is the same under every dispensation. For example, John Wenger complains about how difficult it is to retain Anabaptist identity under regimes that fail to respect conscientious objection (The Doctrines of the Mennonites [Scottdale, 1952], 35-37). Well, what did he expect! In a fallen world, if you never fight back you get slaughtered!

And unless an Anabaptist subscribes to the OT view of covenant children, then doesn’t this dualism run right through the community of faith? Unless the seed of believers are believers, the Church becomes a Trojan horse for the world. One also wonders how the identity of the world as the Civitas Diaboli is consistent with the Anabaptist belief in unlimited atonement.

Anabaptism theology places great stock in the passive example of Christ (e.g., 1 Pet 2:20-24). And there is no doubt that many Christians are called upon to follow their Lord into martyrdom. But this appeal is lopsided:
i) Anabaptist theology reduces the Atonement to the exemplary aspect. But that is very one-sided. Even Peter, to which the Anabaptist repairs, has a doctrine of penal substitution (1 Pet 2:24; 3:18).
ii) Even on exemplary grounds, Christ is heir to the role of the divine warrior (Rev 19:11-15; cf. Josh 5:13-16). Why doesn't the imitatio Christi extend to the office of Christ as a warrior and judge?

Anabaptist writers accuse the Magisterial Reformers of simply yielding to the force of circumstance and trumping up an ex post facto justification for succumbing to the pressure of practical necessities. Cf. The Mennonite Encyclopedia, H. Bender et al., eds., (Scottdale, 1955-59), 4:614a. There may be some truth to this charge. On the face of it, it seems as if they take their initial cue from the world, and then look to Scripture for warrant.

But whatever the motive, this charge is somewhat question-begging, for Scripture is situated in a real world setting, in the world of Egypt and Assyria, Babylon and Rome. So the world you see out the window looks very much like the world you see in Scripture, save for an invisible dimension directing outward events. Modern threats to the people of God from Islam, the papacy, Marxism, Baathism, National Socialism and so on, are not a world apart from the threats facing OT Israel or the NT church, but true to type.

A final failing of Anabaptist ethics is its one-sidedness. It prioritizes and absolutizes the irenic ideal if that were the only value or supreme value in dominical and NT ethics. But what happens, as often happens, when the irenic ideal comes into conflict with the moral imperative of social justice (e.g., Mt 23:23; Lk 1:52-53; Rom 13:3-4; Jas 1:27-2:7; Rev 18)? What if gross injustice cannot be remedied by peaceful means? Doesn't Anabaptism come perilously close to the unctuous preacher who says to starving, shivering masses, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled" (Jas 2:16)? Consider what cold comfort Stanley Hauerwas has to offer the oppressed:
"For Christians, the proper home for the language of evil is the liturgy: it is God who deals with evil, and it's presumptuous for humans to assume that our task is to do what only God can do…Does that mean there is nothing we can do? No, I think that a lot can be done…Christians might consider, for example, asking the many Christians in Iraq what we can do to make their lives more bearable. A small step, to be sure, but peace is made from small steps," "No," This War Would Not Be Moral," Time (March 3, 2003), 45).

Aside from the fact that citizens of a police state are not free to speak their minds, there are other ways of overhearing their cries, if—that is—you have ears to hear. But within the soundproof sanctuary of his pacifist liturgy, Hauerwas is serenely tone-deaf to the screaming victims of the gas chambers and torture chambers, rape rooms and killing-fields—for all unpleasantness lies in a neutral zone, beyond good and evil. A small step, to be sure, but genocide is made from small steps. For sublime sophisticates like Hauerwas, moral outrage is a redneck vulgarism which civilized men must learn to rise above. At most, any breath of indignation is refinedly reserved for those that speak of evil out of turn.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/...byrinth-4.html

Blueridge Believer · #9 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I would add that Jesus and John the Baptizer did not tell the Roman soldiers they came into contact with to get out of the army. Assuming this is the board I think it is, I may log in myself and join the discussions.

That's true enough brother Chris but at the same time most of the Roman soldiers did not have a choice in the matter. They were slaves to the empire.
I am not anti military service but a christian had better count the cost before he joins up. I believe the law of God binds governments as well as individuals. If government officials lie in order to promote a war to steal other peoples lands and natural resourses they are guilty of murder, bearing false witness and covetousness for sure. IMO, the current war in Iraq is not a just war and I could in no way ever support it.

martyrologist · #10 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

I am currently in a discussion (on another message board) with a self-described Christian pacifist. He takes the Yoder/Hauerwas approach.

My current line of response is:

P1: In Romans 13 the civil magistrate is given divine backing (we can talk about instances where civil disobedience would be justifiable later).

P2: The civil magistrate is given the use of the sword.

C1:Therefore, the sword has divine backing (properly applied)

From that I would argue that violence is legitimate. Of course I can throw the usual theonomic bombs, but I am not in "shock mode" at the moment. If anyone is interested for the link, PM me since I don't want to turn this into a "board war."

I would say that while your argument is true I am not sure where you find disciples of Christ given the sword or instructed to be a part of the civil magistrate. In fact I see Christ telling us to concern ourselves with the kingdom of God.

martyrologist · #11 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I would add that Jesus and John the Baptizer did not tell the Roman soldiers they came into contact with to get out of the army. Assuming this is the board I think it is, I may log in myself and join the discussions.

There is a lot Jesus did not say, or at least that isn't written down. That's certainly not an argument you want to weigh too heavily. But the main point is understood. I think the focus should not be on what Christ did or did not say to Roman soldiers, but to his disciples. I think you would agree that actions change after the heart is first changed. And near as I can figure there is nothing instructed to his disciples that would leave me to believe Christ wanted us to have anything to do with the sword (and I mean sword in the general sense of violence, military, etc.). Peace was his way, and that is all encompassing. The military exists, but who said Christians must or should be a part of that?

Ivanhoe · #12 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 10:34 AM

disciples of Christ aren't given the sword, that wasn't my argument. And I believe that disciples of Christ may serve in civil governments (see Luther's works on this matter). My point is that their are times when God himself authorizes and norms the use of the sword.

martyrologist · #13 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

disciples of Christ aren't given the sword, that wasn't my argument. And I believe that disciples of Christ may serve in civil governments (see Luther's works on this matter). My point is that their are times when God himself authorizes and norms the use of the sword.

My apologies if I have misunderstood what your intent in the argument was. What I was saying was that whether or not God authorizes the use of the sword, Christians should be separate from that. Were you not concerned with Christians at this stage of your debate/discussion? Meaning, you weren't specifically discussing Christians at the time?

Ivanhoe · #14 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 11:20 AM

I specifically believe that Christians have the right and duty to serve in the civil magistracy and to carry out legitimate, just functions.

non dignus · #15 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyrologist

My apologies if I have misunderstood what your intent in the argument was. What I was saying was that whether or not God authorizes the use of the sword, Christians should be separate from that. Were you not concerned with Christians at this stage of your debate/discussion? Meaning, you weren't specifically discussing Christians at the time?

Hi Eddie,

Christians being separated from bearing the sword has implications that are distasteful to non-pacifists. When I was a pacifist I had to wrestle with the idea that other men had to 'carry my water'. We benefit greatly from the blood, sweat, and tears shed by soldiers. It dishonors the name of Christ to shirk our duty, and allow unbelievers to do our hard work. If just war be fought, than just men fight.

martyrologist · #16 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

I specifically believe that Christians have the right and duty to serve in the civil magistracy and to carry out legitimate, just functions.

I agree in the US here Christians have the right to serve in the civil magistracy. But the duty? That's where I fail to see any support as far as Scripture is concerned. Is there some you can offer that I can review?

And speaking of this duty, does that transfer to any and all nations where a disciple of Christ happens to be living and serving the Lord? This duty would have to apply to a Christian in a Muslim nation with sharia (sp?) law in place, correct? For instance, we have close friends who live in a middle eastern country right now, one with a minuscule percentage of Christians residing there. You are saying it is their duty to serve in the civil magistracy there?

I'm saying that duty is a strong term. It's a term of obligation. That we disciples of Christ are obligated to serve in the civil magistracy. I cannot simply concede that.

Ivanhoe · #17 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 12:00 PM

Christians are called to be salt and light. Daniel did his duty in a pagan culture and saw hsi biblical values given some weight (some time).

But my original point is the fulcrum. If God has normed the sword (and violence) in some areas, then it stands that it is right for both Christian and non-Christian magistrates to use the sword. Otherwise you would be saying that God has two different standards of morality that contradict one another.

martyrologist · #18 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non dignus

Hi Eddie,

Hello and thanks for the response. Let me try and understand what you are saying and attempt a reasonable and spirit-led response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by non dignus

Christians being separated from bearing the sword has implications that are distasteful to non-pacifists.

First of all let me say that I wish the Church would follow Christ and not care one iota whether or not the world liked it. You have to live out your convictions, even with fellow Christians who hold some different beliefs. So to that I would say if Christ instructed us to lay down the sword and turn the other cheek and so forth, then we had best trust and obey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by non dignus

When I was a pacifist I had to wrestle with the idea that other men had to 'carry my water'. We benefit greatly from the blood, sweat, and tears shed by soldiers.

We Christians in the US do benefit in a way from what others are doing. While there is great debate over whether military action in Iraq is doing anything to help us here, I understand the main point of your statement. Especially when you consider the violent activities it took to separate this nation from the control of Britain a couple hundred years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by non dignus

It dishonors the name of Christ to shirk our duty, and allow unbelievers to do our hard work.

Again the word duty comes up in this topic, but I am not sure where anyone finds this obligation in the way of Christ. Is there Scripture you can offer for me to review?

Our "hard work" has never been in the secular or civic realm. Shouldn't we be concerned with the way of the Lord, the peace of God, his kingdom, his gospel, helping those in need, aiding the poor, aiding widows, and so forth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by non dignus

If just war be fought, than just men fight.

I am a strict pacifist. Meaning I do not subscribe to the Just War Theory. I say that just to be clear on my position. But those who do subscribe to the Just War Theory I believe have the onus of showing that any war/conflict is in fact Just before giving it support.

In my ethics class a while back, we were discussing the different theories. When we came to the Just War Theory he asked the class how many followed this theory. Roughly 90% said they did, and that is after the lecture and discussion of what it is exactly. He then asked them, "Can you name me 3 wars that were actually Just?" The class came up with 0.

I thank you for the dialogue. It's refreshing to have these discussions with like-minded folks who will actually dialogue.

martyrologist · #19 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

Christians are called to be salt and light. Daniel did his duty in a pagan culture and saw hsi biblical values given some weight (some time).

But my original point is the fulcrum. If God has normed the sword (and violence) in some areas, then it stands that it is right for both Christian and non-Christian magistrates to use the sword. Otherwise you would be saying that God has two different standards of morality that contradict one another.

What better way to be salt and light than to be a voice of reason, a beacon of peace and to not be associated with killing others?

But on the fulcrum, I would ask you why there would be any Christian magistrates, especially if you are speaking of a case of a Republic like the US? Why should a Christian involve themselves in such endeavors? I do not believe there is any such duty or obligation for a Christian to do so. Do you have any Scriptural support that I can take a look at?

I will take a look at the Daniel example you gave, but I am thinking more of instructions or prescriptions or guidance given now that we are under grace. I mean, you have to admit that things are a little different now than in the Old Testament times, right?

martyrologist · #20 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

Otherwise you would be saying that God has two different standards of morality that contradict one another.

Oh, forgot to say something about that in particular. I actually do believe Christ holds his disciples to a different standard than he does the world. Remember that one group trusts and obeys him. The other doesn't. We are not of this world. We are merely pilgrims.

Ivanhoe · #21 (**permalink**) 07-07-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyrologist

What better way to be salt and light than to be a voice of reason, a beacon of peace and to not be associated with killing others?

But on the fulcrum, I would ask you why there would be any Christian magistrates, especially if you are speaking of a case of a Republic like the US? Why should a Christian involve themselves in such endeavors? I do not believe there is any such duty or obligation for a Christian to do so. Do you have any Scriptural support that I can take a look at?

God requires just laws (does God approve of sinful things?). It is true that unbelievers, acting inconsistently, can pass just laws, but that is not the norm. Christians, having the benefit of God's special revelation, can understand the world rightly.

Quote:

I will take a look at the Daniel example you gave, but I am thinking more of instructions or prescriptions or guidance given now that we are under grace. I mean, you have to admit that things are a little different now than in the Old Testament times, right?

Things might be different, true, but God hasn't changed his morality. Anyway, I reject a dispensational hermeneutics.

Quote:

Oh, forgot to say something about that in particular. I actually do believe Christ holds his disciples to a different standard than he does the world. Remember that one group trusts and obeys him. The other doesn't. We are not of this world. We are merely pilgrims.

Are you saying that Christ approves of two different ethical standards? If so, this is ethical relativism with a vengeance.