Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[jriccitelli]

If I'm ever in such a situation... and I kill the attacker... I will simultaneously thank the Lord for preserving my family and repent for not having found a way to preserve the life of my attacker.

Now you are coming around, I think, still if I was in your family I would 'not' have a 'clear' answer, or any confidence to whether or not you’re going to stop short of completely defending them. My answer to my family is yes. If everyone agreed to be a martyr for the faith in some instance, that would be our choice, but I am not teaching anyone they need to be martyrs in the case of robbery and assault.

I think Christians should spend more time trying to figure out how to be peacemakers than we do defending our right to kill bad guys.

I think we have long ago already figured out how to be peacemakers, and or owning one. It is not a right, it is just common sense. 'Not' killing bad guys is 'now' only an issue because of this misnomer of complete pacifism. The pacifists should spend less time defending bad guys. The freeworld generally understands that you keep peace by putting evil down, you don’t allow evil to have freedom, and thus leave peaceful people unprotected.

You don't really read what other people say. And you don't respond to questions that I ask you. So is this a dialogue? It's actually just your monologue.

You accuse me of alot; I have answered you point for point, what point was not answered?
I go to great effort to reread your posts, and tirelessly have to point out things simply because of this. As follows;

There doing so does not make them, somehow, less Christian in my book (not that my book matters). I think if they are in a position where violence behavior is expected and killing is sometimes necessary then they have put themselves in a position that Christians shouldn't put themselves into. (Matt)

You are saying they can but they cant. You must understand that you ‘cannot’ be an officer if you stop short your defense ‘because’ you ‘might’ kill the aggressor. That goes for most all police departments (you couldn’t really have a police force otherwise).

... to arrive at truth is for Christians to debate passionately the various positions to see where each argument has its weaknesses. I am proud to represent the peacemaker approach to these issues with vigor.

And I agree likewise, yet I feel it is bad advice to suggest an attack be stopped short because the attacker might die, thus completely endangering the victims. Your advice has gone completely opposite of what ‘professional’ advice and evidence would warn us of. Yet as a pastor/teacher this is a matter of lives or abuse. Pasturing should be the care of sheep, not the care of the wolf.

Personally, I am NOT saying that. I am saying police-work (At least in our context where it involves willingness to kill) is not a job Christians should enter into… they still might be WRONG without being SINFUL if we're using the most practical definition of sin (voluntary transgression of a known law of God). The determining factor is whether or not there is a component of the job that goes directly against the kingdom-ethic (in this case, don't kill enemies).

Since police/military means you must not stop short of pulling a trigger, then you are saying - no - for Christians.
Still the misnomers;
1. You call criminals 'enemies'. I do not see criminals as ‘enemies’, they are perpetrators, and they are responsible for their actions. If they give themselves up, we go peacefully down to the station, they are given their rights, a baloney sandwich, a clean room, and generally kindness as long as they remain non-hostile. They are even protected from hostile inmates (to a degree), etc. so you cant use that term so widely in a freesociety justice system.
2. You continue to equate ‘violence’ with defensive action. That misrepresents policing as aggressive, violence would be an intent to only harm, an out of control angry behavior, this is not appropriate or policy in any western uniform.
3. You also are overlooking that ‘failure to respond’ or defend a victim – 'is' defined as violence because it is a willful decision to 'not' help or assist in the protection of a victim, or stop short of doing so (and punishable).
4. You continue to treat this situation as an exception, but for some places, and for some people it may be daily thing. i think of some relatives and friends of coworkers living in Mexico today, at times they have to be on constant guard against violent rebels or gangs (and depending on police is not always wise). Some families in our own town are having to deal with a violent family member almost daily...

[jriccitelli]

In answer to Matthew 26, and the two swords;

We used to have to walk past some kids who would bully us on the way home from school, yet on the days we had baseball practice we were never bothered, why?
Because we had our baseball bats with us, which were visible. Never a word was exchanged solely because of the ‘presence’ of the bats.
When the kids took the dog (a healthy German Shepherd) with them on a walk around the block, I had full confidence they were safe. Why?
The ‘presence’ of the dog, and the 'sure love' and instinct the dog had to protect the kids.
When someone knows you are armed and able, they tend to leave you alone. You don’t 'have' to do anything, but the choice to do so - keeps others 'guessing' and wiser.

1. What is the purpose of buying a sword?
To protect oneself and others.

2. What is meant by a "sword"?
A blade with a handle, how long a blade is a personal preference.

3. How do these instructions (v.36) follow logically upon the answer they gave to His first question (v.35)?
Before Jesus' arrest they were welcomed and treated fairly, maybe even liked by the crowds, thus they lacked nothing. But now the crowds changed their opinions and seemed to side with the Jewish leaders, it was no longer safe, or popular to side with Jesus or his disciples. In fact it seems most everyone quit supporting Him at this point, probably out of fear of the leaders.

4. Why did Jesus speak as if it was necessary for every man to have one (v.36), and then back down when only two were produced (v.38)?
Jesus could have said you need more, but that would be insinuating they had to defend themselves solely with the knife, rather than depend on God, the respect that two knives gave them, that two good knives should be enough to defend against nuisance attacks at least gives them enough confidence even if they didn’t want to use them. At least they could make a choice. (I tend to think the two that had the knives were probably the ones that should have the knives, or the ones who could defend the group)

5. How does buying a sword help fulfill Isaiah 53, which Jesus quotes as His reason (v.37)?
I don’t think buying a sword fulfills anything. It was just an indication that things were about to really change once He gets arrested. Because he was labeled a transgressor by the religious leaders, and was going to be taken as a political opponent by Roman guards the situation would definitely mean it could get very dangerous, since the arresting mob carried swords and who knows what else. The Roman guard were quite used to physical fights and not afraid, but nobody doing this for work really wants to start any trouble, and these soldiers had nothing to gain in getting into what to them was a meaningless fight over some guy they didn’t care about. The possibility of resistance meant the disciples were not going to be victims of senseless beating with clubs, the opposition has to 'consider' the disciples 'could' respond in defense, even if they don't. Even evil people will 'avoid' a fight if the defense is at least 'capable' of defending themselves.

6. If Jesus wanted the disciples to defend themselves with swords, why did He rebuke Peter for doing so?
It was not the time, and Jesus Himself did not need defending for sure. But this neither says they could or could not defend themselves, families or anyone. The warning about living and dying by the sword is absolutely true in a couple of ways; If you display a weapon you had better be prepared to use and handle it, otherwise you may have it turned on you. Two; as a way of life, the result is you have to accept that this may be the way you die also, but that applies to even those who use a weapon purely for good and only in the defense of others.
And the ‘Kingdom’ of God was not to be ‘advanced’ with a sword, there should be nothing hostile about the message or proclamation of the Gospel, but this does not give up all reason for protecting individuals, society or maintaining peace (blurring the difference is no different than when men blur the difference between works and faith, worship and ritual, etc)

7. If Jesus had the disciples' self-defense in mind, why did the early church never defend themselves in this way?
Christian pacifists are blurring social defense and advancement of the faith. What Christians did to protect homes and family is different than what they wanted to do to convert, or defend their religious convictions.
And the arguments put forth in Homers previous link on the early church are completely valid.

Steve I never got to read your article yet, thank God you see the reason in defense, in personal relations…

[mattrose]

Now you are coming around

Coming around? My position hasn't changed since the beginning of the thread!

I think, still if I was in your family I would 'not' have a 'clear' answer, or any confidence to whether or not you’re going to stop short of completely defending them. My answer to my family is yes. If everyone agreed to be a martyr for the faith in some instance, that would be our choice, but I am not teaching anyone they need to be martyrs in the case of robbery and assault.

So because I stop short of saying that I would automatically try to kill the attacker I am not protecting my family? I don't actually see how our views on defending someone from an attack or even different, except that I major on doing everything possible not to kill the attacker and you are less cautious with your wording. The real disagreement in this thread has more to do with the nature of the Kingdom's role and how that applies to a Christian's willingness to take part in an occupation that necessitates a willingness to kill.

I think we have long ago already figured out how to be peacemakers

I disagree. I think most Christians think military and police and laws are the best answer to evil.

The pacifists should spend less time defending bad guys.

Are you seriously claiming that I, in this thread, have been 'defending bad guy.' Or is this just rhetorical jargon?

The freeworld generally understands that you keep peace by putting evil down, you don’t allow evil to have freedom, and thus leave peaceful people unprotected.

The free world is mistaken. You limit evil by putting evil down (military, police, laws). You create peace through the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

You accuse me of alot; I have answered you point for point, what point was not answered? I go to great effort to reread your posts

I generally respond to every section of your comments. The exceptions are places where I do not understand your grammar. As far as I can tell, you did not respond to my lengthy final post on Wednesday in which I asked a number of questions. You may have just missed it as Steve responded after me and you responded to him. But the bigger issue than missing a post here or there (or a question here or there) is that it took dozens of back and forth postings before you realized what my position actually is in regards to personal defense... and even then you congratulated me for finally 'coming around' to a view close to your own. Thus, I think I am accurate in saying that it's not a true dialogue since you're either not reading large sections of my posts OR you are not reading them carefully. Yet, you state that you are reading them carefully. I trust that you are not lying. Perhaps we just aren't good at communicating!

You are saying they can but they cant. You must understand that you ‘cannot’ be an officer if you stop short your defense ‘because’ you ‘might’ kill the aggressor. That goes for most all police departments (you couldn’t really have a police force otherwise).

Here, you are still not understanding my position (I think we are on the same page, now, in self-defense, but you're still not understanding my position on why I don't think Christians should get involved in the military or police force). I'll try to communicate very clearly here: I do not expect an officer to try NOT to kill an attacker in a violent situation where civilian lives are at stake. I anticipate that they will try to kill the attacker in such a situation. I am not against this. It is part of their role to kill such people. But that is precisely why it is not compatible with the role of the Kingdom. We do not seem to be in disagreement about the role of police officers. We are in disagreement about the role of Christians.

And I agree likewise, yet I feel it is bad advice to suggest an attack be stopped short because the attacker might die, thus completely endangering the victims. Your advice has gone completely opposite of what ‘professional’ advice and evidence would warn us of. Yet as a pastor/teacher this is a matter of lives or abuse. Pasturing should be the care of sheep, not the care of the wolf.

You are free to feel that my advice (that Christians should try not to kill bad guys) is bad advice. I feel that your position is bad advice for the Christian. I think you use unnecessary hyperbole when you state that my position is 'completely endangering the victims.' The fact of the matter is that there is no guarantee an attacker is going to kill anyone until he has done so. So it is impossible to know how many lives have been lost unnecessarily. What's more, in many cases an innocent party has escalated a situation by trying to strike first. All of these facts should lead us to a cautious approach to violence, even in cases where it is permissible.

My role as a pastor is to care for sheep, not primarily by protecting their bodies... but by helping to protect their souls. This being the case, I have a responsibility to teach them enemy love. Nothing I said was motivated solely by a desire to not kill bad guys. Frankly, I am more concerned with the soul of the Christian.

Since police/military means you must not stop short of pulling a trigger, then you are saying - no - for Christians.

Here's you've made a category mistake. If I think something is off-limits for Christians, it is because I BELIEVE it is off limits for Christians. But Christians aren't accountable to me. They are accountable to God. My opinion on these matters isn't a final verdict. But it makes no sense for me to not aggressively advocate a position I strongly believe in biblical. Thus, I say it 'should' be off limits for Christians... but since it is a debateable point, genuine Christians disagree and do indeed participate in such occupations. I do not deny their Christianity. I question their consistency.

1. You call criminals 'enemies'. I do not see criminals as ‘enemies’, they are perpetrators, and they are responsible for their actions. If they give themselves up, we go peacefully down to the station, they are given their rights, a baloney sandwich, a clean room, and generally kindness as long as they remain non-hostile. They are even protected from hostile inmates (to a degree), etc. so you cant use that term so widely in a freesociety justice system.

Seems like semantics to me.

2. You continue to equate ‘violence’ with defensive action. That misrepresents policing as aggressive, violence would be an intent to only harm, an out of control angry behavior, this is not appropriate or policy in any western uniform.

I probably did make a mistake earlier in communication. I was using violence in the sense of intent to kill. It likely came across as a rejection of physicality/force in defense. It has never been my position, in this thread, that victims cannot utilize physicality/force in defense.

3. You also are overlooking that ‘failure to respond’ or defend a victim – 'is' defined as violence because it is a willful decision to 'not' help or assist in the protection of a victim, or stop short of doing so (and punishable).

I have never in this thread advocated non-response or a decision to not help. Indeed, that position (non-response) is exactly why I don't label myself a pacifist (b/c people associate pacifism with non-response to evil.. though it doesn't actually mean that). I believe in a 3rd position other than pacifism (non-response toward evil) and force (overcome evil by force). The peacemaker overcomes evil with good. This is the role of the church. This is our biggest area of disagreement. The military attempts to respond to evil by force. Police attempt to respond to evil by force. Laws attempt to respond to evil by force. None of these entities even attempt (with the possible exception of some laws) to overcome evil with good. But that is specifically what Christians are called to. Thus, a Christian being a police officer or military member would too often be serving two masters with two different callings in two different roles.

4. You continue to treat this situation as an exception, but for some places, and for some people it may be daily thing. i think of some relatives and friends of coworkers living in Mexico today, at times they have to be on constant guard against violent rebels or gangs (and depending on police is not always wise). Some families in our own town are having to deal with a violent family member almost daily...

What percentage of people do you think deal with having to possibly kill at attacker on a daily basis?

If that percentage is less than 10% (and I think it is MUCH MUCH lower), then almost by definition we are talking about the exception to the rule.

In any case, we've already determined that... now that you've 'caught up' with what my position has been throughout the thread, we don't really see things very differently in these regards. The main area of continued disagreement is in Christian involvement in occupations that assume willingness to kill.

[steve]

jriccitelli,

Thanks for giving your opinions on my questions. Nothing there that has not often been said. I'm still looking for the answers that make sense historically and biblically to me. If pat answers were satisfactory, I would have felt this passage's mysteries were solved for me 40 years ago.

[dwilkins]

I would like to hear how the non-pacifist deals with that passage.

I'll try to answer your questions with as much clarity as I can, but I won't claim to know everything on the topic or to be perfectly comfortable with everything I am saying. These are the best answers I can give you but I am challenged by the topic as well.

In particular, it would be good to know the following:

1. What is the purpose of buying a sword?

Jesus isn't clear about the purpose of the sword other than his destiny per Isaiah 53 and Mark 15:28 (see below) depends on it.

2. What is meant by a "sword"?

Of all of the questions I think this is the easiest one. The Strong's listing says the following:

G3162 machaira makh'-ahee-rah

probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163;

a knife, i.e. dirk; figuratively, war, judicial punishment.


KJV: sword.

I doubt there is any question that he is referring to anything other than an edged weapon of some kind in this passage (it’s irrelevant whether this is a knife or a full sized sword). And, since the Disciples seem to have a couple of them handy during the conversation it seems that they had been armed up to this point and no objection had been raised (or, they were able to quickly retrieve a couple knives during the course of the conversation, possibly from the dinner area, which I suppose is possible).

3. How do these instructions (v.36) follow logically upon the answer they gave to His first question (v.35)?

The first set of instructions were for a specific mission: Evangelizing the Israelites within the land. Going without an extra coat or money bag was known as a way of immunizing yourself against being robbed (transients without things of value were typically left alone, and Herod's campaign against robbers and insurrectionists immediately before Christ's ministry radically reduced the threat of highway robbery). He gave them a particular set of orders for a particular mission. Now that he is leaving them he is giving them a different set of orders for a different mission. Likewise, Jesus promised to keep the Disciples safe (other than Judas) throughout the course of his ministry. But, this would change once he was physically removed from the earth. The point I was making in the other thread about John 6, 17, 18, and other passages is directly connected to this. Once he was gone he did not guarantee their safety. In fact, they were all eventually martyred. You will immediately ask if we have any record of them defending themselves. I will try to answer that below.

4. Why did Jesus speak as if it was necessary for every man to have one (v.36), and then back down when only two were produced (v.38)?

He indicated that they needed edged weapons and was satisfied by two of them. The passage doesn’t say any more or less than this.

5. How does buying a sword help fulfill Isaiah 53, which Jesus quotes as His reason (v.37)?

I will speculate that it is tied into his thoughts on John 6, 17, 18, and Mark 15:28 (which you will notice is missing from some of your CT based translations). Jesus tells them clearly that they need to arm themselves with knives because Isaiah 53 has to be fulfilled. Isaiah 53 is fulfilled in Christ being crucified between two criminals. I suggest the answer is somewhere in the narrative between these events. See #6.


6. If Jesus wanted the disciples to defend themselves with swords, why did He rebuke Peter for doing so?

Please try to clear your mind about the following before proceeding. It's one of the harder things to do, but it seems to me that the narrative of the event has been loaded with preconceptions that make it very hard to see clearly. What, exactly, does Jesus say in this passage (ESV):

Mat 26:46 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand."
Mat 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
Mat 26:48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man; seize him."
Mat 26:49 And he came up to Jesus at once and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" And he kissed him.
Mat 26:50 Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you came to do." Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.
Mat 26:51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.
Mat 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Mat 26:53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"
Mat 26:55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me.
Mat 26:56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled.

Mar 14:43 And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
Mar 14:44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man. Seize him and lead him away under guard."
Mar 14:45 And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, "Rabbi!" And he kissed him.
Mar 14:46 And they laid hands on him and seized him.
Mar 14:47 But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.
Mar 14:48 And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?
Mar 14:49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled."
Mar 14:50 And they all left him and fled.

Luk 22:47 While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him,
Luk 22:48 but Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?"
Luk 22:49 And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?"
Luk 22:50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
Luk 22:51 But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him.
Luk 22:52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?
Luk 22:53 When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness."
Luk 22:54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a distance.

[dwilkins]

Joh 18:3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
Joh 18:4 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?"
Joh 18:5 They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.
Joh 18:6 When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
Joh 18:7 So he asked them again, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go."
Joh 18:9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: "Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one."
Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)
Joh 18:11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?"
Joh 18:12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.

First, he is clear that the people coming for them are bunch of armed soldiers. Second, he has told his Disciples to be armed (for some reason). Third, he declares that letting the Disciples go will fulfill the scriptures so that he will lose not one of them (so, this is not a statement having to do with soteriology, but simply of the temporal safety of his Disciples during his ministry and up to his arrest). Fourth, when Peter draws his sword and strikes, Jesus tells him to put it away. Careful here. He tells him to do so because if he tries to save his life with a sword he'll be killed with a sword. I know there is a deep tradition that this means more to two millenia of Christians than it meant to Peter alone, but I suggest that this is a serious hermeneutical error. He is telling Peter not to fight or he will die. He then settles the situation down by healing the servant’s ear. He is not necessarily telling thousands of years of Christians that in all situations they should not fight under any circumstances. We can debate about whether or not that's what he really means. But, if we do so we are opening a very interesting can of worms wherein all direct commands to individuals in discreet scenarios in the Biblical narrative applies to all Christians in all situations throughout all of history. If that is not spiritualizing the text way beyond its literal intent I don't know what is.

So, your question is why did he order the Disciples to be armed and then rebuke Peter for fighting with those arms. I think the answer is simply that Peter was applying it in the wrong place and wrong time. They may have needed to be armed in order to escape from Jesus’ arrest (and maybe never again), but the preparation for the arrest and the fulfillment of the scripture surrounding the arrest seem like a tight narrative that isn’t necessarily meant to be spiritualized by either side. I know this opens a can of worms addressed below, but if this is not the answer then we have to decide which other pieces of advice given to people in the New Testament we are willing to ignore when they should unwaveringly apply to us (advice not to be married, head coverings, women staying quiet in church, etc.).

7. If Jesus had the disciples' self-defense in mind, why did the early church never defend themselves in this way?

Early church history is a topic that interests me greatly. As I started to study it the first thing that challenged me was the pacifism as Viola described in his books. However, in short order I discovered the dirty little secret of Christian history that I have never heard about outside of personal interest reading: The majority of the church existed east of Jerusalem in the first 1,000 years; almost all of the Disciples died there as martyrs; and we have almost none of the writings of that church readily available in English.

So, you might ask, "why didn't the Disciples in the east write about using violence?" Well, how do you know they didn't (this question applies to much of church history because there are great gaps of writings in important places and times that we generally assume line up with the closest available thought, though this is completely arbitrary)? After the Muslims exterminated that church (there is almost none of it left, and in the last 100 years there has been a literal evacuation of religious leadership and writings to the west, though we haven't put much effort into learning about it) they destroyed all of the easily accessible writings that they could find. The Eastern Orthodox Church had helped marginalize, kill, and erase the history of that church throughout it's history, so I don't mean to blame Muslims alone. But, the result is an almost complete lack of awareness of the Church of the East, it’s cannon, it’s history, or its theology, in the Protestant church. If this church, the largest by population and land mass during the first 1,000 years, had a different tradition about violence I would be surprised if we knew about it at this point. When you ask "why did the early church never defend themselves in this way?", you are asking why the church in the Mediterranean basis do so before it's merger with the government of Rome. Keeping in mind that the Mediterranean basin church was the smaller, more irrelevant offshoot of the church, my question back is "why does it matter what they did?" They were an offshoot of the church. The major effort was where almost all of the Apostles went and were martyred, so that by 2-300AD there were Christians in the Steppes, China, and tip of India.

The question is whether or not the pacifists pre-Roman Catholic Church were right or not. Islam hadn’t been invented before they made that merger, and the government/church hybrid was violent enough to keep the western church alive as opposed to all of the other churches started by the Apostles. Just because Islam hasn't gotten around to killing the RCC off as fast as the others, we seem to think that they were the more important branch of the church (Perriman is hung up on the importance of "Christiandom", and I think this is his major mistep). We might find out, with another couple of hundred years of concentrated effort in translation and engagement with the Church of the East, that their tradition was different than the short lived Mediterranean basin tradition (maybe they stayed pacifist too long and were eventually wiped out; or maybe, as an RCC friend of mind suggests, their doctrine was polluted so God judged them and wiped them out). But, "the early church" is much larger group of people than we usually consider and we are completely ignorant of most of their early history so I don't think we can come to any conclusions about what the “early church” was like at this point.

Of course, it should be kept in mind that a very warlike Muslim invasion completely overran the Church of the East within about 200 years (indicating that they didn't fight back and weren't integrated into government, which indicates what I think Steve’s point is, that early churches didn’t tend to merge with government). Likewise, Muslims have managed to exterminate Christians in every part of the globe where the Christians have not fought back. This is a 1,500 year trend that shows no sign of abatement. In other words, everywhere Christians have refused to physically fight back against Muslims they have eventually been exterminated. I don't have a perfect answer to this, but it is an important existential question that Christians should start asking themselves. The Roman government/religion was a serious threat and caused a significant number of martyrs. But, it was an incoherent religion tied to a degenerating government. Islam is a different story. I suggest that we start to think very hard about how we are going to deal with them. I hope the answer isn't simply kinetic, but history so far has shown that there aren't many other options.

Anyone interested in delving into some interesting Church history (specifically Church of the East) might find some interesting stuff here:

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Chri ... f+the+east

http://www.amazon.com/The-Church-East-A ... f+the+east

http://www.amazon.com/Pilgrim-Church-Ed ... rim+church

[jriccitelli]

Good morning Steve, I guess I am not qualified to give you answers, so I will ask some questions.
You said; “Matt and I believe that it can be appropriate for the Christian to intervene with force to protect the victim in the immediate danger…” (Aug21, pg6). Matt admitted that he would have to, so it is agreed then that; 'a Christian can kill if necessary to protect a victim’? (Without saying there are 'two' kinds of true Christians, since that was the premise and situation in the original question;

I am not talking about a situation that doesn’t call for force, no matter what situation, if after we have attempted, tried or considered other alternative strategies, it becomes clear it is too dangerous for the defense to safely subdue or divert the aggressor – this is where we begin the question about pacifism... 1. You can’t say that a person is not living by ‘Kingdom’ principles when it may be that they need to use deadly force to stop a crime)

You continued; “… This is not the same thing as signing up to do the same thing as a career”
1. If it is not the same thing, how is it different?
2. If the law agency has laws of conduct and morality, why not?

If you like solving mysteries, here are a few;
3. How could any society operate if there was no law enforcement?
4. How could a store stay in business if people could come in and take things without fear of arrest?
5. How could you have traffic laws if no arrests could be made?
(Remember, nobody I know is going to just walk into a jail cell because they feel it will do them some good)

[Singalphile]

I have two issues:

1. If someone asks me whether he should join the military or the police force, I will give him the same advice whether or not he's a Christian. The non-Christian won't care if he's doing what God wants him to do, of course, but that's his problem.

2. I don't see the mutually exclusive role that some of you (perhaps just mattrose and steve) see of membership in God's kingdom and employment in law enforcement or the military.

I see no clear, single thread of thought in Romans 12-13 (and 14). Rather, it seems to simply be a list of doctrines (i.e., instructions) to the readers with various explanations. Romans 13 doesn't clearly declare any doctrine of separate and mutually exclusive roles for the church and the government, does it? Not that I can't see how one might read it between the lines. I can see that, and it's worthy of mention. But I can't say for sure. If that's what Paul meant, then ... well, he could have just said so. All the same for 1 Peter 2.

So, still and finally, I can't see speaking against Christians in private or public police or military work except on a case by case basis. (And btw, I also have no particular interest in or love for the military or the police, and no one I know closely has ever worked for either. I personally would discourage anyone from joining the U.S. standing military at this time. I don't have any particular problem with law enforcement, in general.)

[Paidion]

The whole matter of Christians carrying out the words of our Lord, "Resist not evil", "Love your enemies", "Bless those who curse you; pray for those who abuse you". etc. VERSUS defending those who are in danger of death from an aggressor by violence or even killing him if necessary, has been the most difficult of all questions for me during the last 50 years.

Though I still have not positively resolved the issue in my own mind, I lean heavily toward the position which Matt and Steve have espoused.

But I wonder about Christians being involved in particular capacities or situations which do not DIRECTLY involve killing or attacking others, but which yet may lead to the death of others.

For example, in the world wars, some pacifists who refused to participate in war, were forced by the government to work in factories which manufactured war machines or war equipment. Should these pacifists have refused to participate in the manufacture of these instruments of war? Or were they guiltless because they were not directly involved in the killing, and were not responsible for what soldiers would do with the weapons they created?

What about doctors who treated all soldiers regardless of which side the soldiers were fighting on? By saving the lives of these soldiers, they were rendering them capable of killing other people (which they would have been unable to do if they had been allowed to die). Or can these doctors rest assured that they are fulfilling God's will to save others, and are not responsible for what these soldiers would do in the future in terms of killing other people?

[Paidion]

Incidentally, Matt, your interesting sentence which I am presently using in my signature would clearly indicate that if the eternal torment of ANY people were true, then those sinners would no longer be in the hands of God and "that most scary thing imaginable" would be realized. Of course, you know this, and I would guess you had that in mind when you wrote it.