Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[SteveF]

Matt,

This may have already been mentioned, as I don’t have time to read the whole thread.

In defense of your position, I think another argument for calling the police is it greatly DECREASES the chance of violence. If a situation is getting out of control I’m pretty sure that 99% of the time when the police show up it de-escalates the situation.

If your goal is non-violence, then quite often calling the police is the way to achieve it. I've heard that most officers don’t shoot their guns in their entire career.

[mattrose]

Yes, that sounds likely and reasonable to me. In fact, the more true that is, the more possible it could be for a Christian to serve in such a role.

[Singalphile]

I've read all the posts. Thanks for the responses directed to me. Good food for thought.

[Homer]

I understand Matt's concern regarding the <1%, and SteveF is apparently correct regarding the frequency of police using their gun. One of our elders was a long time policeman until he retired and told me he had never once used his gun in the line of duty. However, I think it would be dishonest to become a police officer with the idea that you would never shoot someone, hoping to never be in that position. If you believe you could not use a gun without sinning, you should stay out of that line of work.

I believe there may be another way to look at the matter. In his instructions to the Corinthians, Paul admonished them about taking their brother to a court of law where non-Christians would settle the matter. He gave them permission to have the dispute settled by the church. And then he said it would be better to be wronged than have a dispute at all. Perhaps the same principle holds here; it is not a sin for a Christian to serve as an officer of the law, but it would be even better if he did not.

Regarding the scenario I mentioned earlier where the girl was held hostage with a gun to her head, what if I came upon the scene, with no police there, and raised my hands high to show no violent intent and approached the man, pleading for him to let the girl go and let me be her substitute as hostage? "No greater love than this.....". But would I? That's the greater question.

Note: I do not think the position of the early Christians is as unified as is suppposed. My Anti-Nicene Fathers are temporarily unavailable, but it is my understanding that Eusebius referred to Christians in the military long before the reign of Diocletian, and that Tertullian mentioned a Christian soldier who was punished for refusing to wear the laurel headress.

[steve]

Note: I do not think the position of the early Christians is as unified as is suppposed. My Anti-Nicene Fathers are temporarily unavailable, but it is my understanding that Eusebius referred to Christians in the military long before the reign of Diocletian, and that Tertullian mentioned a Christian soldier who was punished for refusing to wear the laurel headress.

It is true that there were Christians in the military. We do not know that they joined the military after their conversions, however. If they did, then they were acting against the counsel of every church father who wrote on the subject in the first three centuries. This is not too surprising. Christians often act contrary to the official teaching of their pastors—and often contrary to the teachings of Christ.

[jriccitelli]

That’s a completely different thing, you should know that at that time there was no-Christian foundation or thinking in anything yet, all professions were unfamiliar with Judeo-Christian principles.
Even being a doctor or politician meant you most likely were involved with the occult, at the time the Military and police were the same thing and for the most part they were ‘all’ aggressive bands of controlled looters rapists and thief’s, some with more civil and civic orders than others but these armies were from a completely different world than what developed later on.
The ‘idea’ of chivalry and protecting all innocent people took a long time to catch on, but it’s fault is that it defended the Church rather than people, and the Church was of course Rome, and it’s king the Pope(s).

People have abused ‘every’ institution of man, from businessman, tax collector, mother, and most notably Religion, Christianity, and specifically the church leaders and bishops. Should we never have preachers and bishops because of the bad ones? There is a good case for this also. The Word says to have discernment, the Bible says we need Bishops and such, we only pray that we have good pastors and soldiers.
You are still hanging this all on the verse in Matt 5:38-39, and then reading into it from elsewhere, elsewhere is where? The closest related verse I see is Matt 5:22, saying if you are ‘angry’ with your brother or sister’ or if you insult, or if you call someone a fool you will be liable to the Gehenna of fire. (Why are we even quoting the Sermon on the Mount if Jesus is only warning them not to be liable to the judgment, which already happened in 70ad? Just curious)

The bible elsewhere supports being supportive of the weak and innocent, establishing justice, discerning and knowing right from wrong, which means calm, wise, and humane decisions in the defense of others.
God has laid down very explicitly what He thinks of evildoers and corrupt people. God under His own instructions had Israel destroy the evil around them, and he ‘trained’ them for battle. We are not Israel and we have no right to impose Judgments, but we do understand the principle of standing for justice, establishing fair justice for all, and protecting the life and rights of the innocent.

Matt. 5 is speaking of not returning violence for violence, anger for anger, insult for insult, from where are we pulling an interpretation too - not defend others - into this one verse?
We have Jesus telling them to sell their cloak and by one sword, why?

[steve7150]

Matt. 5 is speaking of not returning violence for violence, anger for anger, insult for insult, from where are we pulling an interpretation too - not defend others - into this one verse?
We have Jesus telling them to sell their cloak and by one sword, why?







I think in Matt 5 where the Christian is called to be a peacemaker, to thirst for righteousness, to be merciful and even to be meek can be fulfilled as a police officer although when one accepts the gun as a tool of the trade he is accepting the possibility that he may have to use it and then he must evaluate whether the rules of law enforcement contradict the rules of Christ.
I suspect that the policeman is expected to use his gun only as a last resort but there may be certain scenarios where the rules of law enforcement contradict the laws of Christ such as when a suspect is fleeing after ignoring the policeman's order. Is the policeman expected to shoot a fleeing suspect in a serious crime? Are the rules different in different
localities? I wouldn't know.
As to the buying of a sword, i think that is probably not literal but even if it is it would be for defensive purposes only.

[jriccitelli]

Yep, the discretion lies in the hand of the sword beholder, and a Christian would not retaliate without absolute necessity and good judgment. The answer to; 'Jesus telling them to sell their cloak and by one sword' lies at the heart of this post by stevef;

‘In defense of your position, I think another argument for calling the police is it greatly DECREASES the chance of violence. If a situation is getting out of control I’m pretty sure that 99% of the time when the police show up it de-escalates the situation’

Why does their presence often defuse a situation?
'Because' they have the presence of the ‘sword’ (I have said before; The fear of the sword is the beginning of knowledge). If there were no possibility or presence of force then it would not change the situation. The aggressor knows the police are trained, capable and will ‘not’ take no for an answer.
Having a sword at their side, kept the offense guessing as to where the disciples ‘might’ draw the line. Maybe they didn’t have a line, it doesn’t say, but that was for the bad guys to ‘guess’.

Matt, you continue to use the term ‘violence’ when referring to what someone defending someone, or what an officer might be called to do. (Yet you maintain you know the difference?) Violence is anger and uncontrolled aggression; although officers can be guilty of this it is punishable and not normal, just as some mothers are guilty of violent behavior from time to time.

Again, the situation happens all day and night for those in uniform, and when not eating donuts, their lives may be at risk minute to minute. They most often do 'not' have to discharge their weapons ‘because’ the aggressor or criminal knows they can do so, and have the duty to do so – otherwise you cannot wear the uniform because your duty is to serve and protect.

The attacker is the violent one, not the defender; this is to make a serious misnomer.
If there is no time to call professionals, I do not know how you could justify not trying to stop an attacker, many women have been able to fight off an attacker, or rapist, thank God, and I even know of little children who have came to the defense of smaller children being beat up by other children, many a brave people have stepped in between a violent attack on a innocent person, if you are not ‘planning’ or have 'intent' to stop the attack you are not much of a help. You have to ‘demonstrate’ some 'commitment' to stopping the attack. And grappling with a hostile attacker is no walk in the park.
I think of the men who stood up on flight 93, those who stepped out onto the beach at Normandy, and my son, who at 15 physically stopped a grown man from attacking his mother, my exwifes ‘friend’ (they were not with me at the time).

[SteveF]

Why does it often defuse a situation?
'Because' they have the presence of the ‘sword’ (I have said before; The fear of the sword is the beginning of knowledge). If there were no possibility or presence of force then it would not change the situation. You know the police are trained and will ‘not’ take no for an answer.

If by "sword" you mean specially granted governmental authority then I agree. If by "sword" you mean a firearm, then it seems another debate could begin on that issue alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use ... ed_Kingdom

Steve

[Homer]

Re Christians in the military, here is an interesting article about early Christianity:

http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/ ... ar_ap.html