Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[barnhart]

"The only people on earth who do not see the teaching of the Christ as nonviolent, are Christians.". - Gandhi

The underlying assumption of this thread is non Orthodox believers have divided the Church by not putting themselves under the Orthodox authority structure. But maybe the real division is when believers no longer follow Jesus, no matter the church structure.

[Valerie]

And for the record, just because someone or some church identifies as Anabaptist, Church of Christ, Slavic Pentecostal, etc., does not make me think that they are probably born again, following Jesus, still have their candlestick, etc. I won't make that deduction until I have seen what kind of fruit is coming from their lives.

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ?

Some believers understand scripture to say that war is justifiable when it is motivated by a desire for peace, or done in self-defence, or to protect the innocent, and when it is done in a just way. Under these conditions a Christian could go to war as an agent of his country.

I think we can be very wrong in our judgments as fruit inspectors regarding who is saved and who is not. The Matthew 7:15 text regarding fruit inspecting has to do with false prophets. Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

We can let the word judge:

Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I agree with the word which agrees with the Word! If a person wants to call that judging then take the argument with God and what His scripture says.

But God did not equate acts of war as "murder". If so, in the Old Testament, when He gave the commandments to not kill (murder) BUT then, sent His very elect to kill and destroy people in wars He ordained- would have been contradictory. There then seems to be in Gods view a difference- He who commanded not to kill, also commanded TO kill- it seems this has led to a difference of understandings within the Church. Murder would not then be what a soldier is doing in following God's commandment to kill. I remember, when seeking Anabaptism- a Baptist preacher was padding out tracts and i brought up the Anabaptists views about "war" (as I know Baptist do not discourage serving your country in this manner) and he said to me "their interpretation is wrong!". Kind of like Sudsy said, if God is judging the heart and they believe differently regarding these interpretations will they be accountable before God if they felt they were doing the right thing by serving their country protecting it?

[Valerie]

It takes more than non-resistance to draw people towards Christ. But any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God.

Nonresistance or pacifism has never represented more than a tiny fraction of Christianity (probably far less than 1%) going all the way back to when the early church became institutionalized with Constantine in the 4th Century and soldiers started wearing crosses.

Look at the example of WW2. In that war the US had legal accommodations that allowed draftees who were opposed to participation in warfare to perform alternative service. Approximately 12,000 draftees performed alternative service during WW2 compared to over 12 million Americans who were drafted. If you do the math, that comes out to about 0.1% of draftees holding strong enough pacifist views to do alternative service. This is from a nation that in the 1940s identified as more than 95% Christian.

Yet it was 100% of Christianity from the 1st to the 3rd centuries.

I have read quotes of Early Christian writers that i dicate there were Christian soldiers before Constantine- their quotes are from the 1st & 2nd century.- so difference of opinions are before Constantine. In a couple of their quotes they bring up what's been brought up here before about John the Baptist not telling the soldiers to quit serving, and.think about how Jesus marveled at the faith of the centurion. Im not advocating for or against but pointing out there was no sudden change because of Constantine, because Christian soldiers apparently existed way before him, and also there seems to be different interpretations early on.

[Valerie]

....
I assume that the Roman Catholics felt attacked themselves in the uprisings against them because I have read the history about how anabaptist people would show up in their churches- although not killing them- certainly attacking them verbally - not sure if that would be a type of persecution or not-

Not having ever heard or read anything of this claim, it would be of interest to see references. (Unless calling them out for their wickedness is to be considered a verbal attack - that there is plenty of in Martyrs' Mirror.)

I would have to find my very old book Mennonites in Europe" which is among my many boxes of books we boxed up. The "impression" it left me with is that if i belonged to the Church and Anabaptists showed up there to disrupt the way they did during service, it was a questionable approach to change things but as a member pf the church it might jave felt like persecution or attack.

[GaryK]

Nonresistance or pacifism has never represented more than a tiny fraction of Christianity (probably far less than 1%) going all the way back to when the early church became institutionalized with Constantine in the 4th Century and soldiers started wearing crosses.

Look at the example of WW2. In that war the US had legal accommodations that allowed draftees who were opposed to participation in warfare to perform alternative service. Approximately 12,000 draftees performed alternative service during WW2 compared to over 12 million Americans who were drafted. If you do the math, that comes out to about 0.1% of draftees holding strong enough pacifist views to do alternative service. This is from a nation that in the 1940s identified as more than 95% Christian.

Yet it was 100% of Christianity from the 1st to the 3rd centuries.

I don't know about 100%. But my point is that for the last 1700 years or so, nonresistance and pacifism as a defining creed is held by a vanishingly small portion of Christianity. Once is a while, like with the rise of Anabaptism during the Reformation, it might blip up a tiny bit. But it doesn't last.

I believe Jesus meant what He said when He said:

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV 13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Percentages mean nothing to God. Faithfully following Jesus' teaching to love our enemies does.

[Valerie]

"The only people on earth who do not see the teaching of the Christ as nonviolent, are Christians.". - Gandhi

The underlying assumption of this thread is non Orthodox believers have divided the Church by not putting themselves under the Orthodox authority structure. But maybe the real division is when believers no longer follow Jesus, no matter the church structure.

Following Jesus in every way, perhaps in hearing His hearts prayer that the Church would be One so the world would see that- as testimony- He admonished behavior in Revelations 2 & 3 but never did He encourage starting His Church to be reinvented, but even if it was clear that a prophet was sent to do so, they would have all come out as one and not be sected today unless we take into consideration Max's earlier post. It os what it is. I just read from a Catholic that it is the most persecuted and attacked religion on the Earth, and they believe it is because partly due to the fact they are the most pro-life- it is interesting that they conclude an equate hatred towards them as evidence that they are the true church-

[Wade]

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ?

Some believers understand scripture to say that war is justifiable when it is motivated by a desire for peace, or done in self-defence, or to protect the innocent, and when it is done in a just way. Under these conditions a Christian could go to war as an agent of his country.

I think we can be very wrong in our judgments as fruit inspectors regarding who is saved and who is not. The Matthew 7:15 text regarding fruit inspecting has to do with false prophets. Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

We can let the word judge:

Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I agree with the word which agrees with the Word! If a person wants to call that judging then take the argument with God and what His scripture says.

But God did not equate acts of war as "murder". If so, in the Old Testament, when He gave the commandments to not kill (murder) BUT then, sent His very elect to kill and destroy people in wars He ordained- would have been contradictory. There then seems to be in Gods view a difference- He who commanded not to kill, also commanded TO kill- it seems this has led to a difference of understandings within the Church. Murder would not then be what a soldier is doing in following God's commandment to kill. I remember, when seeking Anabaptism- a Baptist preacher was padding out tracts and i brought up the Anabaptists views about "war" (as I know Baptist do not discourage serving your country in this manner) and he said to me "their interpretation is wrong!". Kind of like Sudsy said, if God is judging the heart and they believe differently regarding these interpretations will they be accountable before God if they felt they were doing the right thing by serving their country protecting it?

The Israelites were serving their country and obeying God. It was always about God’s kingdom - but the Old shows us it could never be a territory, it could never be fought with carnal weapons. The Old teaches something- not something to follow. In the Old the Israelites were called to do the separating.

The New teaches us to serve and obey our King and His kingdom like the old. But explains that we are strangers and pilgrims to the countries here - they are not Christian countries and not our duty to use carnal warfare, in fact we are told to not use carnal warfare at all in the new. We trust God has fully taken over the responsibility to manage the separating in the new.

We are a kingdom like the Old but now a kingdom of people converted with changed hearts and motives wanting to live by His eternal principles and not His people by heritage or because we were baptized without consent.

Again the difference like I pointed out earlier is not to do with children, the church, or murder - the difference is in seeing and entering the Kingdom of God.

[RZehr]

Nonresistance or pacifism has never represented more than a tiny fraction of Christianity (probably far less than 1%) going all the way back to when the early church became institutionalized with Constantine in the 4th Century and soldiers started wearing crosses.

Look at the example of WW2. In that war the US had legal accommodations that allowed draftees who were opposed to participation in warfare to perform alternative service. Approximately 12,000 draftees performed alternative service during WW2 compared to over 12 million Americans who were drafted. If you do the math, that comes out to about 0.1% of draftees holding strong enough pacifist views to do alternative service. This is from a nation that in the 1940s identified as more than 95% Christian.

Yet it was 100% of Christianity from the 1st to the 3rd centuries.

I have read quotes of Early Christian writers that i dicate there were Christian soldiers before Constantine- their quotes are from the 1st & 2nd century.- so difference of opinions are before Constantine. In a couple of their quotes they bring up what's been brought up here before about John the Baptist not telling the soldiers to quit serving, and.think about how Jesus marveled at the faith of the centurion. Im not advocating for or against but pointing out there was no sudden change because of Constantine, because Christian soldiers apparently existed way before him, and also there seems to be different interpretations early on.

Go ahead and visit Bahkmut. See what goes on there. See the hatred and the killing, the blood, the maiming. See the fear. Hear the cursing. See the destruction and evil.
(Things so raw and brutal, that television and YouTube do not show it, but offer heavily curated content instead. If American TV would show the raw reality of war, maybe Americans would not be so confused about the morality of the matter.)
See how all those good Orthodox Christians on each side are doing their best to kill each other. And come back and tell us again how wonderful it all is, how Orthodoxy is the right way to follow God, and how fighting war is compatible with following Christ.
There’s a lot of theorizing going on here about war and Orthodoxy. But remember, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is". - Yogi Berra

Was it worth dividing the church? Ask the people who did it by choosing to following the Prince of darkness - the Catholics and the Orthodox leaders back then. I’m sure it was worth it to Satan. These people who left Christs narrow way, who left the the teachings of Christ for the way of Beelzebub, are indeed the ones who divided the church.
It merely took a while for others to realize this spiritual reality had taken place. So when they later left to start meeting separately physically, this was not the division of the church, but merely an acknowledgment of what had already taken place spiritually.

[Soloist]

Any response to me Valerie? I pointed out some of the issues with your quotations.

[Sudsy]

So, it seems he was saying that the Kingdom way of non-resistance is a main drawing of people to follow Christ by the showing of God's love. If this is true, how do we account for the lack of growth in many non-resistant churches aside from their having large families ?

It takes more than non-resistance to draw people towards Christ. But any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God.

This certainly has been one of the dividing issues in the Church but when it begins to sound like a salvation issue (i.e. 'not yet entered the Kingdom of God'), then I personally don't think it is 'rightly dividing the word of truth'. Taking any scripture verse and saying something like 'Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it' can be a dangerous way to approach using the scriptures.

This reminds me of the Oneness Pentecostal emphasis on Acts 2:38 that is often presented as the one and only means of salvation. The verse must be taken literally in how they believe what it means.

If one searches the Internet for example using 'Is Pacifism Scriptural' one will see articles from many Christian sources giving their understandings of which the majority say it is not. However, I know of none that make it a salvation issue. Here is an example of a Baptist minister and in the section 'What exactly did Jesus teach' is his interpretation of scriptures on the subject using verses here that most are probably quite familiar with. Are people with these understandings not Kingdom citizens ? I don't believe there is scriptural support for that view but others may.

https://g3min.org/jesus-not-pacifist/