Christian Pacifism

[barnhart]

Another foundational principle of non- resistance, and maybe of christian pacifism I general, is conviction that the kingdom of Jesus is not of the type that it can be advanced by coersion or violence, or to say it another way whatever can be accomplished or sustained with coersion and violence is categorically not the kingdom of Jesus.

[JohnH]

Another foundational principle of non- resistance, and maybe of christian pacifism I general, is conviction that the kingdom of Jesus is not of the type that it can be advanced by coersion or violence, or to say it another way whatever can be accomplished or sustained with coersion and violence is categorically not the kingdom of Jesus.

Does this not necessitate a certain mysticism and belief in the miraculous?

Because if we don’t use coercion and violence… it is not possible to make Jesus’ kingdom happen without waiting for miracles to happen, and doing our part might mean submitting to what seems like a senseless slaughter, like what St. Agatha submitted to.

[Valerie]

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.)

You ask a question that’s hard for me to remember specifics as opposed to general stories that are vague to me these days but gave a lasting impression how Christians felt used by God for others while they were in the service. Just the kind of things I’ve heard through the years at Church, home Bible studies, etc but in a war situation if you have for example an “unbeliever” what a help a Christian of faith can be in many ways.

[Ernie]

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.

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried." - G. K. Chesterton

Out of the 70 million Allies who fought against Hitler, 35+ million claimed Christianity. I've often posited... What if those 35+ million had gone to Europe and really loved the Germans? What if they had poured coals of fire all over the Germans?
We will never know because this has never been tried at any scale close to that.

My guess is that far fewer people would have died and a better outcome could have been achieved.

[barnhart]

Out of the 70 million Allies who fought against Hitler, 35+ million claimed Christianity. I've often posited... What if those 35+ million had gone to Europe and really loved the Germans? What if they had poured coals of fire all over the Germans?
We will never know because this has never been tried at any scale close to that.

My guess is that far fewer people would have died and a better outcome could have been achieved.

Add to that what if the German Christians had simply pursued non-cooperation. If they had sat down, there wouldn't have been enough SS officers to arrest them.

[JohnH]

Out of the 70 million Allies who fought against Hitler, 35+ million claimed Christianity. I've often posited... What if those 35+ million had gone to Europe and really loved the Germans? What if they had poured coals of fire all over the Germans?
We will never know because this has never been tried at any scale close to that.

My guess is that far fewer people would have died and a better outcome could have been achieved.

Add to that what if the German Christians had simply pursued non-cooperation. If they had sat down, there wouldn't have been enough SS officers to arrest them.

They seemed to manage OK dealing with 6 million non-cooperative people.

[Soloist]

I think it’s a mistake to assume that following God’s way will result in positive worldly changes.
Had the Christians in Germany resisted, fighting and committing atrocity, chances are John is right.
At the same time, that is what we’re called to do.

I don’t think that the early Christians went to Colosseum’s, prison and execution thinking that their example would reform Rome.
I think they did it because they knew it to be right and what God asked of them.
Our weapons are not carnal and they do not bring about fleshly changes, but spiritual.
Could God have used it to do all of this certainly and that could’ve been a plan He used. Evidently though He did not.

[joshuabgood]

I think it’s a mistake to assume that following God’s way will result in positive worldly changes.
Had the Christians in Germany resisted, fighting and committing atrocity, chances are John is right.
At the same time, that is what we’re called to do.

I don’t think that the early Christians went to Colosseum’s, prison and execution thinking that their example would reform Rome.
I think they did it because they knew it to be right and what God asked of them.
Our weapons are not carnal and they do not bring about fleshly changes, but spiritual.
Could God have used it to do all of this certainly and that could’ve been a plan He used. Evidently though He did not.

I am not sure I am quite in this same place. Perhaps the way of the cross, suffering love, has the most utility in bringing salvation to society.

[barnhart]

I think it’s a mistake to assume that following God’s way will result in positive worldly changes.
Had the Christians in Germany resisted, fighting and committing atrocity, chances are John is right.
At the same time, that is what we’re called to do.

It's hard for me to imagine it would have been worse. I suspect a very large percentage of the German army considered themselves Christian enough to be swayed by a consistent, large scale outbreak of Christ-likeness. There are no guarantees, you are right about that but perhaps we give up Christ-likeness to easily.

I recently had an orthodox Jewish nationalist tell me "If Palestinians were like Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, there would have been peace long ago", and I had to agree he was probably right. That said, the Christian Palestinians I have heard speak really challenged me with their commitment to non- resistance, it's a diverse community.

[mike]

I think it’s a mistake to assume that following God’s way will result in positive worldly changes.
Had the Christians in Germany resisted, fighting and committing atrocity, chances are John is right.
At the same time, that is what we’re called to do.

I don’t think that the early Christians went to Colosseum’s, prison and execution thinking that their example would reform Rome.
I think they did it because they knew it to be right and what God asked of them.
Our weapons are not carnal and they do not bring about fleshly changes, but spiritual.
Could God have used it to do all of this certainly and that could’ve been a plan He used. Evidently though He did not.

I am not sure I am quite in this same place. Perhaps the way of the cross, suffering love, has the most utility in bringing salvation to society.

What does it mean to bring salvation to society?