Christian Pacifism

[joshuabgood]

I think a worldview such as Valerie projects hinges on an underlying conviction that force and violence have redemptive power, they align with the character of God and are the methods he wants to use. Assuming this groundwork, pacifism is negligence.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by "redemptive" but I don't know why that would be necessary to such a view. How about "restraining" or "corrective?" I wouldn't say that making society more outwardly peaceful is redemptive either; I would only associate that with the blood of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel.

If violence is "restraining" or "correcting" in that it produces a safer, that is salvation, in a society - then what is the distinction with "redemption?"

Some would advocate that harshness/violence etc - never promote a safer society or redemption. Only the way of the cross, that is the way of suffering love, produces that. Only love can fix evil.

[JohnH]

If violence is "restraining" or "correcting" in that it produces a safer, that is salvation, in a society - then what is the distinction with "redemption?"

Some would advocate that harshness/violence etc - never promote a safer society or redemption. Only the way of the cross, that is the way of suffering love, produces that. Only love can fix evil.

When I have observed how plain Anabaptists have completely bungled handling serious abuse cases, it has led me to believe the exact opposite is true.

Trying to love a sociopathic, chronic, and unrepentant abuser does not 'fix evil'. It just provides lots more opportunities for such a person to keep hurting innocent children.

It may seem a bit harsh, but a jail cell with a good set of bars, a sturdy luck, and law-abiding guards results in a safety society and and indeed offers the person a chance to redeem themselves. Not that they get their freedom back, but they eventually have an opportunity to admit they were wrong, and to find some way to serve others even during their prolonged confinement.

Jim Bakker has said that going to prison was one of the best things that happened to me. Chuck Colson has said the same thing.

[Neto]

I think a worldview such as Valerie projects hinges on an underlying conviction that force and violence have redemptive power, they align with the character of God and are the methods he wants to use. Assuming this groundwork, pacifism is negligence.

Not really, somewhat true- and I don’t think pacifism is negligence, I believe it’s personal conviction which I am all for. I just don’t see Christians who sense a call to serve as being “disobedient “ or evil, many have told how God used them in that service. Maybe testimonies have influenced my thinking, personal relationships, and the fact my brother was a Chaplain- this would of course align with my understanding that loving your enemies is referring to personal relationships and treatment. Perhaps also knowing the allies will be leading an army I realize the Father & Son advocated for war-even as evil ad it is to fight evil. May He convict & show me where I see it wrong.

Valerie, I undestood Barhart's use of the word 'redemptive' in the sense of bringing about spiritual rebirth. Later comments here by others seem to indicate a different understanding of the word, 'redemptive' in the sense of 'redeeming society, or the culture'. While I DO believe that redemption of the individuals that make up a society or culture definitely has a positive influence on the society or culture, I do not think of that as being any type of redemption. Only people can be 'redeemed'.

You said that you have heard testimonies stating that "God used them in [military] service". How were they used, and was there spiritual rebirth as a direct result of their military service? (I DO understand that any type of job or association puts people into places or situations where personal relationships may occur, and that some of these relationships result in spiritual benefit to one of both of those involved. I do not, however, think that this in any way justifies military involvement. God can use people in any place they go, but I do not see how the idea that involvement in military service can be Biblically justified. This may be just a difference of opinion, or even of how the Scripture should be understood, and I also am willing to be corrected, but I have to have it from the Scripture, not from a testimony.)

[barnhart]

I think a worldview such as Valerie projects hinges on an underlying conviction that force and violence have redemptive power, they align with the character of God and are the methods he wants to use. Assuming this groundwork, pacifism is negligence.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by "redemptive" but I don't know why that would be necessary to such a view. How about "restraining" or "corrective?" I wouldn't say that making society more outwardly peaceful is redemptive either; I would only associate that with the blood of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel.

It is theoretically possible to see coersion and violence as part of God's corrective or constraining mercy without assuming it has positive or redemptive qualities. For example a farmer might cull a diseased animal to prevent further contamination but that doesn't heal the disease. In the same way God may utilize things like violence (along with famine, disease, natural disaster, war etc...) without laying down justification for us to take up that pursuit.

In answer to the question of redemption and "making society more outwardly peaceful" I would suggest God's redemptive plans for people and society are bigger than only snatching people to heaven when they die, there is also an element of re- creation, remaking Eden and the restoration of Eden like relationship between individuals, between people and the rest of creation and between people and God.

[MattY]

I think a worldview such as Valerie projects hinges on an underlying conviction that force and violence have redemptive power, they align with the character of God and are the methods he wants to use. Assuming this groundwork, pacifism is negligence.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by "redemptive" but I don't know why that would be necessary to such a view. How about "restraining" or "corrective?" I wouldn't say that making society more outwardly peaceful is redemptive either; I would only associate that with the blood of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel.

I think it's redemptive, for example, to have people settle a dispute in small-claims court rather than having a shootout and a resultant 100-year family feud.

It saves lives and results in less (or no) violence and hatred. It doesn't seem like it would save souls or bring about repentance, the new birth, and faith in Christ, although it may keep them alive long enough to do so or keep them from having hearts hardened with bitterness and hatred. And conservative Anabaptists wouldn't usually think that being a judge in small claims court is a redemptive activity that they should participate in.

[MattY]

If violence is "restraining" or "correcting" in that it produces a safer, that is salvation, in a society - then what is the distinction with "redemption?"

Some would advocate that harshness/violence etc - never promote a safer society or redemption. Only the way of the cross, that is the way of suffering love, produces that. Only love can fix evil.

When I have observed how plain Anabaptists have completely bungled handling serious abuse cases, it has led me to believe the exact opposite is true.

Trying to love a sociopathic, chronic, and unrepentant abuser does not 'fix evil'. It just provides lots more opportunities for such a person to keep hurting innocent children.

It may seem a bit harsh, but a jail cell with a good set of bars, a sturdy luck, and law-abiding guards results in a safety society and and indeed offers the person a chance to redeem themselves. Not that they get their freedom back, but they eventually have an opportunity to admit they were wrong, and to find some way to serve others even during their prolonged confinement.

Jim Bakker has said that going to prison was one of the best things that happened to me. Chuck Colson has said the same thing.

I would agree with this, I think Scripture and general revelation does indicate that a government bearing the sword does result in a safer society than anarchy or lack of punishment for destructive behaviors in society.

[JohnH]

It saves lives and results in less (or no) violence and hatred. It doesn't seem like it would save souls or bring about repentance, the new birth, and faith in Christ, although it may keep them alive long enough to do so or keep them from having hearts hardened with bitterness and hatred. And conservative Anabaptists wouldn't usually think that being a judge in small claims court is a redemptive activity that they should participate in.

One of my biggest challenges is facing the problem of just how poorly Christian pacifists have handled abuse of children in our ranks (not to imply other denominations or cultures have done it better - in my view they haven't). There really is no getting around the problem that the best thing for sociopathic, intelligent, sophisticated abusers need to be subjected to an impartial, fair judicial process and then kept away, using force, from potential victims.

It's the best thing for both the abuser and for the victims. But it is a rather potent argument against the idea that just living out suffering love somehow brings about Jesus' kingdom on earth. I think we actually have to have Jesus show up for that to truly happen.

I would agree with this, I think Scripture and general revelation does indicate that a government bearing the sword does result in a safer society than anarchy or lack of punishment for destructive behaviors in society.

Yes, and in Anabaptist circles where we have tried to shield our members from punishments/incarceration, the results have been disastrous. The Jeriah Mast situation comes to mind where the evasion of prosecution went on for a long time, and then his ongoing offences became much, much worse.

Our attempts to run the equivalent of a minimum security prison like the Eastern boys' camp are not particularly inspiring either.

[JohnH]

In answer to the question of redemption and "making society more outwardly peaceful" I would suggest God's redemptive plans for people and society are bigger than only snatching people to heaven when they die, there is also an element of re- creation, remaking Eden and the restoration of Eden like relationship between individuals, between people and the rest of creation and between people and God.

Would you view this as not happening until the New Heaven & New Earth (which is a particular eschatological view, I guess?), or is this something that happens in the here and now, perhaps to a limited degree?

One view I found interesting (although I don't hold to it) is the post-millennial view espoused by David Chilton, R. J. Rushdoony, and others that God plans to redeem and restore his creation and his people and eventually actually bring about Eden on this earth.

[MattY]

I think a worldview such as Valerie projects hinges on an underlying conviction that force and violence have redemptive power, they align with the character of God and are the methods he wants to use. Assuming this groundwork, pacifism is negligence.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by "redemptive" but I don't know why that would be necessary to such a view. How about "restraining" or "corrective?" I wouldn't say that making society more outwardly peaceful is redemptive either; I would only associate that with the blood of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel.

It is theoretically possible to see coersion and violence as part of God's corrective or constraining mercy without assuming it has positive or redemptive qualities. For example a farmer might cull a diseased animal to prevent further contamination but that doesn't heal the disease. In the same way God may utilize things like violence (along with famine, disease, natural disaster, war etc...) without laying down justification for us to take up that pursuit.

I think I agree with this. And I think this type of correction can even show someone the consequences of sin (like someone coming to the end of themselves in prison), but then they actually have to yield to the call of God to repent. However, merely correcting or restraining people to be better members of society does not redeem them. They're like the people in Jesus' parable who had 7 demons cast out of them. That's better than having 7 demons, but that doesn't mean they are redeemed; their life is still empty.

To use the analogy of corporal punishment, you can't spank a child into receiving Christ or repenting of his sins by force, and if you do try to force such an outcome, you'll do lots of damage to the child. But (if administered lovingly and properly) such punishment does correct the child and direct his behavior towards a better path.

In answer to the question of redemption and "making society more outwardly peaceful" I would suggest God's redemptive plans for people and society are bigger than only snatching people to heaven when they die, there is also an element of re- creation, remaking Eden and the restoration of Eden like relationship between individuals, between people and the rest of creation and between people and God.

I agree, I do believe God is interested in the restoration of the the physical creation as well, reversing the effects of the Fall. However in this age, I think this primarily happens in the church, which is Christ's kingdom, by bringing people to Christ and breaking down barriers between us; but the culmination of this, and the transformation of society and creation as a whole happens after Christ's return.

[JohnH]

I handle my livestock such that they are trained to be less aggressive. For example, I don't tolerate certain behaviour from my cattle, and if they do things like act aggressively, swing their head, lower their head to charge, etc., they get a nice big bop on the nose with a sturdy stick. Likewise, if they had bad behaviour when their were calves, they would get penned up for the day. My neighbour farmer taught me those methods.

Of course, there are positive things too like making sure whenever I handle them I generally give them a treat.

But overall this results in:

- a better life for the animal, since I don't have to go slaughter them due to repeated bad or aggressive behaviour

- a better life for me

- the cows are not "redeemed", but the end result is better for everyone. redemption of all animals is ultimately up to God (and does seem to be part of his divine plan)