Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[mattrose]

I think I understood you pretty clearly.

Let's see.

You think it is beneath you to partake in physical violence to solve civilizational problems.

No. I think Jesus told me not to partake in physical violence because it doesn't solve civilizations problems.

You're 0-1

Because all people sin, some worse than others, it's mandatory that there is some sort of physical response to criminality sometimes.

No. It is not mandatory that there be some sort of physical response to criminality sometimes. It is beneficial to the current age to have governments and governments create policing entities that sometimes use physical responses to criminality. I'll give you an NHL style over-time loss on that one.

You're 0-1-1

You don't think you should have to participate in that,

It's not that I don't think I should have to (like I look down on those who do?). I don't participate in it b/c Jesus told us not to.

You're 0-2-1

but you think other people (sinners) should in order to protect you.

No. I don't think they SHOULD. I think God set up the concept of government and some people sacrificially choose to give their lives to such causes. They create blankets of protection that I am under in terms of my secondary citizenship. I am thankful to God for creating government during this age and I am thankful to sacrificial people who perform that role in society.

You're 0-3-1

I agree with the comment above that this might be less hypocritical if you never called the police, but you said that you didn't think there would be a problem with that. Being willing to use sinners to do sinful things for your benefit is hypocritical in my opinion.

No. I didn't say it was sinful. I have said repeatedly that it is not sinful for humans to participate in government. It would be sinful for me, called to be a Christian and representative of the kingdom, to go against my convictions (the sermon on the mount) and join an entity that utilizes violence b/c that would be going outside the role that I have been called to by God (And that I believe all Christians have been called). But it is not sinful for people that don't yet have that calling to perform that role.

You're 0-4-1

So, actually, you have a pretty poor record in terms of understanding my argument.

[steve]

I actually posted this about the same time as Matt posted his (above), without having seen it.

I think I understood you pretty clearly. You think it is beneath you to partake in physical violence to solve civilizational problems.

Doug,

It is clear that you either do NOT understand Matt's position, or that you are not representing your response to it very correctly. Matt does not think it is "beneath" him to partake in physical violence. He believes that the Christian is called to obey and represent Christ in a particular manner. You make it sound as if he is some primadonna who will not dirty his hands with such work. He made it clear that he does not think the work to be "dirty" work. It is, however, the divinely-appointed assignment of the Church to serve humanity in one manner, and for the State to do so in another.

You don't think you should have to participate in that, but you think other people (sinners) should in order to protect you. I agree with the comment above that this might be less hypocritical if you never called the police, but you said that you didn't think there would be a problem with that. Being willing to use sinners to do sinful things for your benefit is hypocritical in my opinion.

The Church serves the world as a kingdom of priests. In Israel, as in most nations, the wars were not conducted by the priests. When Moses took the census of men of military age, he did not include the Levites. Why? Certainly not because military service was considered illegitimate. It was, rather, that the priesthood served the nation one way, while the military served it another. Matt is describing (I think correctly) a vocational distinction between the Church and the State.

It is disingenuous, if you understand Matt's position (which is precisely that of all Christian writers in the first three centuries of the church), to suggest that what is wrong for the Christian to do may not be regarded as right for a non-Christian to do. This is because the Christian is an agent of the Church, not of the State. The State has been ordained by God (Rom.13:1-5) to do certain activities that the Church has not been ordained by God to do (Rom.12:19).

It is not inconsistent to see "killing bad guys" as a right activity for a party whom God has ordained to do it, but a wrong activity for one whom God has not ordained to do it, any more than it is inconsistent to see cohabitation with a particular woman as an activity that is right for one man (her husband, who has been ordained by God to do it), but wrong for any other man. Even in ordinary law enforcement, in many situations, not every citizen is authorized to do what a policeman is required to do.

The wisdom and consistency of Matt's position was embraced by all Christian leaders for three centuries. After Constantine's conversion, things became more confusing. Many Christians today feel they can make a compelling case against the historic non-resistance ethic of the early Christians, but no one who understands their position can call it inconsistent without betraying one's own inability to recognize consistency.

[SteveF]

Just curious, JR, dwilkins and others who wish to comment. I’ve posted below some of the rationale that was given to encourage people to join the first Crusade in the 11th century. Would you have joined the Crusade? Why or why not?

" ….For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them….."

And

" ….When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you?...."

[jarrod]

I have really enjoyed reading this post as well as the others on this same topic that have recently transpired. They have made me re-think a lot of my positions to the point of conviction and change on a few matters.

I have a question though about Exodus 22:2-3:


I definitely do not want to be "under the Law," but I do not see problems in drawing lessons from it about God's character and His holy standard (Rom 7:12). God seems to allow for the differentiation between defending oneself in the act of crime and retaliating after the fact. That seems natural to me, but that may not be a good thing

While I would sincerely not desire to harm someone, I do not see myself taking a beating lying down. This would apply even more so in defense of someone else. I have been punched, slapped, made fun of and other acts where I did nothing in return because the situation did not warrant (by my thinking) any retaliatory response. I feel this is more what Jesus spoke about in Luke 6:29 than real evil or murderous attempts.

I am still working through all of this, so I reserve the right the change in the next minute

[mattrose]

I have a question though about Exodus 22:2-3:

I think I am reading the passage differently than you Jarrod.

Here is your commentary on the passage:

God seems to allow for the differentiation between defending oneself in the act of crime and retaliating after the fact.

You're reading it to mean that the victim gets retaliation 'after the fact' (after sleeping on it, after sunrise).

I don't think that's what it means.

Thieves tend to work at night. If a thief breaks into a house, a groggy man, not knowing what is going on or who is in his home, might instinctually kill the attacker. In such a case, it is not really the man's fault that the attacker died. How is a groggy man, working in the dark, supposed to be held accountable for his instincts? The thief put him in a very terrible situation.

The sunrise is not about the man getting vengeance a day later. It is about a different scenario altogether. If a thief breaks into a house during daylight hours... the victim, though still a victim, may be held responsible for how he handles the situation. If he escalates the problem of thievery by attacking and killing the thief... he is guilty of shedding blood. He should have been able to deal with the situation more appropriately given the light of day.

So, in a sense, this passage supports my overall point. While we might not be judged for instictual, heat of the moment decisions when we have been put in a terrible vulnerable position.... we very well may be judged for utilizing violence with our eyes wide open, so to speak.

[jarrod]

Wow, you're right. I wasn't reading it like that. I pulled up the NIV, which I rarely use, and they interpret it how you do:

"but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed."

Thanks Matt, I'm going to do some more digging and re-apply that to my filter.

You're reading it to mean that the victim gets retaliation 'after the fact' (after sleeping on it, after sunrise).

The sunrise is not about the man getting vengeance a day later. It is about a different scenario altogether. If a thief breaks into a house during daylight hours... the victim, though still a victim, may be held responsible for how he handles the situation. If he escalates the problem of thievery by attacking and killing the thief... he is guilty of shedding blood. He should have been able to deal with the situation more appropriately given the light of day.

[Singalphile]

I'm not sure I understand your position, mattrose. It seems like you're saying that it is a sin for a Christian to be a police officer ("I don't participate in it b/c Jesus told us not to.") but not for a non-Christian ("I can think of no higher non-Christian calling.").

If that is your position, then it is confusing to me. It seems like any legal job position is either inherently immoral (e.g., stripper, abortionist, a soldier or officer in an aggressive, imperial dictatorship's police/army), in which case no person should take the job, or else it's not inherently immoral and therefore any person, Christian or not, should be able to fill the position.

Some professions provide unique opportunity for immoral, physical abuse, but it seems like we'd especially want Christians in those professions so as to guard against that abuse. I can see that Jesus and his apostles taught us to allow ourselves to be personally abused and taken advantage of. I don't see where the Bible teaches that we shouldn't be involved in any military or police job even in a country with good laws and police/military practices.

Of course, we want everyone to become a Christian. As we work towards that goal, would we say then that our pool of police and military applicants is necessarily getting smaller? Rather, I think that our police and military would be becoming less corrupt, less prone to power trips, less aggressive, etc. as more true believers become involved in them for the better.

God has different callings for different members of the church (like priesthood vs. military in Israel, all part of God's people), but I don't see where God has different but equally legitimate callings for non-Christians vs. Christians.

Did the early century Christians think that their particular government (Rome?) was inherently corrupt and ungodly and therefore no one (especially Christians) should participate in it, or did they think that any government or military position involving potential violence is inherently immoral (for all or for just Christians)?

[dwilkins]

I think I understand what's going on here just fine. The least you can do is avoid hypocrisy by not calling the police if anyone is ever doing a crime to you.

Doug

[Homer]

Interesting discussion. As far as the question of being in the military vs. being a civilian policeman, it might not have been under consideration in the early church, seeing that there was no distinction between military and police in the Roman Empire as there is today. The military filled the role of policemen back in early Christianity.

If Jesus considered it wrong to be in the military, it is odd that He did not say "go and sin no more" to the centurian in Luke 7:1-10. And why was the centurian in Acts 10 not urged to resign from the military? Was his reception of the Holy Spirit an acceptance of him and his military status?

I have known several men who were policemen and devout Christians. Were they in sin throughout their careers? As alluded to previously, it would seem that they might have been "salt" in their position. One of them was a member of LAPD for many years. He knew the men who beat Rodney King, and said they were bad cops. If there are no Christians in the police, would the police be better or worse?

A few years back I was outside working in our yard. I heard what sounded like gunshots, but thought nothing of it. We live in a small rural town, and it is not unusual to see deer in town, and occasionally cougars are seen. And gunshots are not an unfamiliar sound near town. But this day the gunfire was different. A man had driven into the local Chevron mini-mart and taken a young woman hostage. The sheriff's deputies arrived and there was a stand-off. The man was holding the girl close with a gun to her head. He lowered the gun for a moment and was immediately shot dead by a police sniper.

Now it might be argued that the man's death precluded any opportunity for repentance. But it is equally true that if he killed the girl her opportunity for repentance, if needed, would have also ended. So to me this consideration is a non-factor.

Was it a sin for the sheriff's deputy to kill the man? What if you were a hunter or somehow an expert marksman and happened on the scene. Would it have been a sin for you to shoot the man? Or a sin to allow the girl to be killed? Would it have made any difference if the girl was your child? And if you could shoot the man without it being a sin, why would it be a sin for you to do so as a policeman?

J. Jeremias stated that Jesus' prohibition against using force was always in the context of persecution for your faith. Was He wrong? Would Jesus have used force to defend someone? What about the woman caught in adultery? If her accusers had ignored Jesus and prepared to stone her anyway, would Jesus have gotten his dander up as when He cleansed the temple and used force? Doesn't seem out of the question, given what He did to Jerusalem in 70AD.

Just thinking.

[mattrose]

I'm not sure I understand your position, mattrose. It seems like you're saying that it is a sin for a Christian to be a police officer ("I don't participate in it b/c Jesus told us not to.") but not for a non-Christian ("I can think of no higher non-Christian calling.").

I don't think any Christian should voluntarily put themselves in a situation where they are expected to be willing to use violence. I think the best interpretation of Jesus is that this is inappropriate behavior for the Christian. With that in mind, however, there are 2 scenarios where the issue is not so black and white.

First, what about a person who is in a job requiring a willingness to use violence (police/military) who subsequently becomes a Christian. I don't think it is absolutely necessary that they leave their post, especially if there is some degree of likelihood that they will never have to use violence during their tenure.

Second, what about those Christians who interpret Jesus differently? Of course, they should follow their conscience and their best understanding of their Lord.

So it's not as easy as simply saying I think it's a sin for a Christian to be a police officer. It would be a sin for me to be a police officer b/c I'm currently not one AND because I interpret my Lord to be teaching that I shouldn't put myself in that position. But it's not necessarily a sin for all current Christian police officers to be police officers. Since sin is primarily a relational thing, it is possible to be in the wrong without sinning. It is very difficult to overcome years of indoctrination.

If that is your position, then it is confusing to me. It seems like any legal job position is either inherently immoral (e.g., stripper, abortionist, a soldier or officer in an aggressive, imperial dictatorship's police/army), in which case no person should take the job, or else it's not inherently immoral and therefore any person, Christian or not, should be able to fill the position.

Obviously, based on this thread, this sense is quite popular. I just disagree with it. My guess is that Christians have responded to moral relativism by hunkering down on the idea of absolute truth insofar as we INSIST that what's right for one person must be right for everyone and what's wrong for one person must be wrong for everyone. Well, I believe in moral absolutes too... but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING is absolute. There are situational ethics. People in different situations are responsible to obey different laws.

As questionable as that might first seem, it is actually recognized by everyone. There are different laws from town to town, state to state, country to country. When we are in each place, we are subject to the laws of that land. Well, in the same way that is true spatially, it is also true relationally. People who are in different relationship to Jesus Christ are subject to different ethical guidelines.

Steve brought up a good comparison (actually, it is more than a good comparison, it is a near perfectly parallel). Think of the Old Testament. The priests had a different role than the members of the other tribes. They were not to participate in war. This did not indicate that the rest of Israel was sinning when they went to war. They just had a different role. In the New Covenant, we have a priesthood of all believers. We are a kingdom of priests. In ancient Israel, God called the priests to perform one role and the rest of Israel to perform another (which included the use of violence). In today's world, God calls the church to perform one role and the rest of the world to perform another (which includes the use of of violence).

It is somewhat surprising, to me, that this idea of different people in different roles being subject to a different ethic is being interpreted as hypocritical when it is so much a part of revealed biblical history.

Some professions provide unique opportunity for immoral, physical abuse, but it seems like we'd especially want Christians in those professions so as to guard against that abuse. I can see that Jesus and his apostles taught us to allow ourselves to be personally abused and taken advantage of. I don't see where the Bible teaches that we shouldn't be involved in any military or police job even in a country with good laws and police/military practices.

I don't insist that everyone agree with me. But I also think it is important for people to state their convictions clearly so that people who do understand Jesus differently have opportunity to think the issue through, if they haven't already. I could easily say, in other words, "well, to each his own... it's no big deal what we decide on these issues." But that is disingenuous. It is a big deal. We should definitely think through our willingness to shoot somebody dead. We should definitely think through our willingness to even put ourselves in a position where we have an obligation toward that willingness.

As for me, I can't imagine doing that while simultaneously loving that person. I've been accused of hypocrisy by multiple people in this thread b/c I'm against violence but see nothing wrong with calling the police. What level of hypocrisy is it to be able to reconcile love for enemies with shooting one of them in the head?

Of course, we want everyone to become a Christian. As we work towards that goal, would we say then that our pool of police and military applicants is necessarily getting smaller? Rather, I think that our police and military would be becoming less corrupt, less prone to power trips, less aggressive, etc. as more true believers become involved in them for the better.

I am not good enough at hypothetical to speculate confidently. I'd guess that if more people were truly becoming Christians, there'd be less overall crime to deal with (and the need for less officers). I'd also guess that the growing Christian body would be salt and light in such a way that begins to transform people even before they convert. I'd also imagine that some non-Christians serving in such roles would convert... and I've already said I don't think their situation is clear-cut that they should get out (the early church struggled with that issue too).

God has different callings for different members of the church (like priesthood vs. military in Israel, all part of God's people), but I don't see where God has different but equally legitimate callings for non-Christians vs. Christians.

That's what Romans 13 is about. Governments are called to certain tasks. They exist, in part, to bring punishment on wrongdoers. The church does not exist to bring punishment on wrongdoers. The church exists to love them.

Did the early century Christians think that their particular government (Rome?) was inherently corrupt and ungodly and therefore no one (especially Christians) should participate in it, or did they think that any government or military position involving potential violence is inherently immoral (for all or for just Christians)?

That's a good question. I think they recognized that all earthly kingdoms were unholy. I think they recognized that all violence was unholy.

Thank you for the tone and thoughtfulness of your questions and comments.