Christian Pacifism

[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 think we do what is right and let the rest to God, not necessarily expecting things to work out well for us or for society in this life. Like the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace - if God chooses to deliver us for doing what is right, fine. If not, fine. We know that in the larger perspective of eternity, things will always work out well for us. We're not necessarily looking to be saved from every threat in this life.

[MattY]

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.

Right. "This will succeed in changing the world and stop bad people from doing bad things" and "this is the correct thing to do" are not the same thing.

To be blunt, I think it's pacifist prosperity-gospeling.

[Ernie]

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.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make.

[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.

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.

Right. "This will succeed in changing the world and stop bad people from doing bad things" and "this is the correct thing to do" are not the same thing.

To be blunt, I think it's pacifist prosperity-gospeling.

Some of it is, however I don't think we need to give up on the cross as a redemption force in society, as the primary expression of being salt and light. Otherwise it becomes a symbol to hang on the wall.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Right. "This will succeed in changing the world and stop bad people from doing bad things" and "this is the correct thing to do" are not the same thing.

To be blunt, I think it's pacifist prosperity-gospeling.

Some of it is, however I don't think we need to give up on the cross as a redemption force in society, as the primary expression of being salt and light. Otherwise it becomes a symbol to hang on the wall.

Should our mission and goal be to redeem society, or simply to follow Christ in whatever he asks of us regardless of whether it seems like it will do any good for society?

[Ernie]

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.

Right. "This will succeed in changing the world and stop bad people from doing bad things" and "this is the correct thing to do" are not the same thing.

To be blunt, I think it's pacifist prosperity-gospeling.

Yes, the foundational motivation should be to do the right thing, even if things get worse.

However, we have all seen how returning good for evil has changed small pockets of the world. Would it not be reasonable to hope and pray that it could happen on a larger scale, with the understanding that there is no promise that things will get betters.

There is fairly good evidence that the prayers for the government, good deeds, and returning good for evil by Christians in Rome eventually brought about good in the empire. This seems reasonable to me since we are oft commanded in the New Testament to do these things. Will it happen every time? Maybe not.

Most of us believe that praying for physical healing is a good thing and we encourage others to do this also. We tell stories of times God healed and times he did not. I think it is possible to project hope while still being realistic.

[JohnH]

When I think of the type of Lucretia or Agatha, they chose to be martyred for things many of us today wouldn’t even consider that important, yet their devotion was extreme. They considered martyrdom even an honour and perhaps the highest calling a Christian could have.

They were not focused at all on reforming society, even though in retrospect they certainly did.

Meanwhile, today’s well meaning mainline Protestants have gone to great effort to reform society… yet society is worse than ever.

[Anthony]

Right. "This will succeed in changing the world and stop bad people from doing bad things" and "this is the correct thing to do" are not the same thing.

To be blunt, I think it's pacifist prosperity-gospeling.

Some of it is, however I don't think we need to give up on the cross as a redemption force in society, as the primary expression of being salt and light. Otherwise it becomes a symbol to hang on the wall.

Should our mission and goal be to redeem society, or simply to follow Christ in whatever he asks of us regardless of whether it seems like it will do any good for society?

The second part

[Bootstrap]

Should our mission and goal be to redeem society, or simply to follow Christ in whatever he asks of us regardless of whether it seems like it will do any good for society?

If you "let your light so shine before men," I think it does affect society. But I think our primary goal is to be the Kingdom of God, living it out.

[Ernie]

Right. "This will succeed in changing the world and stop bad people from doing bad things" and "this is the correct thing to do" are not the same thing.

To be blunt, I think it's pacifist prosperity-gospeling.

Some of it is, however I don't think we need to give up on the cross as a redemption force in society, as the primary expression of being salt and light. Otherwise it becomes a symbol to hang on the wall.

Should our mission and goal be to redeem society, or simply to follow Christ in whatever he asks of us regardless of whether it seems like it will do any good for society?

I think our goal should be to see heaven brought to earth. As we do His will and pray, good will happen wherever there are Christians. Sometimes the changes in the surrounding society are more evident in some locations than in others.