Alright, this is my first real post, so here it goes. After doing some reading, I've become quite interested in finding out what others think of pacifism and whether or not a Christian is called to be a pacifist. I've read arguments for both sides of the issue and have discovered one thing...I have absolutely no idea what to think :grin: Anyways, I just wanted to know what you guys thought. Are Christians called to be pacifists?
Good, but tough question. My initial reaction is 'yes', i.e., "turn the other cheek, pray for those that persecute you, forgive 70 X 7". However, even though there was a time Jesus said put away the sword, another time He said to bring the sword. So, IMO, mostly yes, "getting along with all men as much as is possible"...however, there may be times exceptions are allowable, defense of others (family), defense of the innocent(?)...what about self-defense? Turn the other cheek or "bring your sword" as Jesus said? Personally, I own a gun and keep it in our home as a security measure...obviously I believe it should be used with much discretion...if I ever needed to shoot I think I'd shoot first to scare an intruder away...I'm thinking though, bad as it sounds, the person may not want to require a second shot. Can anybody bring this very interesting and potentially fruitful topic into a UR focus? :Evilgrin:. C'mon, Martin, you're creative :happygrin:.
As many people know, the Church Fathers got downright nasty about pacifism, as if there were never a reason or just cause for a Christian to ever make a difference. The writings of the founding fathers of the United States are fairly illuminating in the opposite direction. Many of them supported their positions for the war with Scripture while they were assembled together. I don't have the particular links handy to the specific webpages, but I'm sure that www.wallbuilders.com (http://www.wallbuilders.com) would have interesting resources along those lines, and perhaps some uploaded documents specifically on this subject from the founding fathers. Even if some people found them a little too right wing of an organization for them to be able to read after on other subjects, on this subject which has defied a strict resolution on the part of Christians that all Christians could be happy with, unless you're willing to do your own research and get your own copies of primary sources on this subject, then on this you might look into their research so that your own time is fairly free for your own continuing UR studies and other pursuits. But then again, wouldn't that be the pacifists way of looking at it? I'll either enjoy or consider all of the quotations, diaries, and essays they've collected on that, but I'll go no further in acquiring some of the books from 200 years ago that they'll be citing! Hmmm... is that it's own form of pacifism, at least academically?
Paul's usage of military metaphors, Jesus parables about Him placing the faithful into civil government, the book of Revelation's blessings for this life to those that are overcoming that include the creation of the Isaiah chapter 11 world as a fruit of all of their struggles, preaching, and resistance to the present order until their faith comes to harvest along the lines of Mark chapter 4 principles. A lot of people think that Jesus's comments about turning the other cheek are a matter of individual, private insults, while Paul's comments in Romans 13 and 1Timothy 2 viewed from the perspective of our present governments that don't have much of a monarchial system but gravitate more towards Republicanism or Democracy based upon the Mosaic law demand personal involvement in civil government, the military, national and regional defense, city/state government, etc.
And then there's that pesky 82nd Psalm that was the subject of one or two threads a few weeks ago that commands those of us who are called to inherit the nations to defend the cause of widows, orphans, the poor, the infirmed, etc. This war in Iraq has gotten as far as it's gotten with right wing fundamentalists because on a surface level reading of Scripture, there's hundreds of chapters of the Bible that would seem to validate and vindicate this war on terrorism. For those potentially ready to pounce on my having said that, I'm not saying that I'm inclined to all of their interpretations line upon line, precept upon precept. My UR, Animal Gospel, and Postmillenialist stances are plain evidence that I think outside of the box and am hard to define definitively from year to year and from issue to issue. Like anyone else, I'm just walking in the light that I've received from the Holy Spirit on all of these matters. I tend to be a Biblical literalist, but with a radically different spin that the Holy Spirit will usually give me from those who consider themselves literalists. To complicate matters, the cessation of war in the Scriptures isn't promised to us, it's promised to the animals. So, we could theoretically go from one blood bath to the next, until the resurrection, with only the Covenant promises from the Lord of our own invincibility if we're walking in the light that we have and are worshipping Him diligently. However, because the cessation of warfare is promised to the animals, we may eagerly pursue all of those promises in their behalf as their priesthood before the Lord. (Cf. Psalm 104, Isaiah 11, Hosea 2:18, the book of Joel, the book of Jonah, et. al.)
The effects of preaching the Gospel, both from the perspective of my Word of Faith background and from the perspective of my newly embraced Postmillenialism, isn't a pacifistic act since within the Word is the power to topple governments and to recreate this and every other world. Preaching the Word, the True Word, is the most hostile act that anyone could engage in, if the ministries of Jesus and Paul are to be an indication of anything. Jeremiah and many of the prophets became cry babies about it more than once 'cause of the intensity of the battles that they faced! Many scholars have said that it was the very words of Jesus and Paul that toppled the Roman empire. N.T. Wright's really short article about Paul being a Jewish Revolutionary is a classic masterpiece. http://www.martincisneros.com/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=18BA9A28-58B1-43AA-934D41737BB3E620&method=display (http://www.martincisneros.com/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=18BA9A28-58B1-43AA-934D41737BB3E620&method=display)
Hopefully, I'll have something more illuminating to share on this subject in a few days.
Thanks for the replies guys. I have to say that I agree with jabcat. Personally, I'm a very easy going person and can get along with just about anybody and I like it that way. I've never been in a fight in my life because I've never had to. However, I do think that there are times when it necessary to use to force, not to hurt someone out of revenge or just for the sake of it, but to stop them from hurting you or others (hence it's called self defense. I would even say that inaction is at times a much greater evil than using force. For example, sitting back and allowing someone to be beaten or raped and not doing something to stop them (I believe that would fit into the category of negligence.) Anyways, y'all are right to say that it is not an easy question. Any other thoughts?
:gangel: