Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[mattrose]

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.

This is a poor argument. Obviously (I think we would agree), there are certain occupations that are incompatible with Christianity (prostitute, pagan priest, etc.). Our whole discussion is about whether or not 'soldier' or 'police officer' fit into that category. You say they don't fit into that category at all. I say they could depending on the situation. But we're clearly not debating whether an occupation is in the category based on whether certain people within that occupation have been corrupt. This makes no difference to what we are discussing. It is a pointless point.

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)

Why do you assume I'm 'hanging this all on the verse in Matt 5:38-39'? You started this thread. I've just responded. I have not aggressively built my case. I have only responded to false information about my view.

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.

None of what you said here is in contradiction to my position... therefore, it does nothing to further your argument.

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?

My position has nothing to do with not defending others. This is about the 5th time I've told you this.

We have Jesus telling them to sell their cloak and by one sword, why?

This is really the only verse that I can think of in the New Testament that could potentially be used to support killing in self defense. Needless to say, I don't think the verse actually supports that at all. The best interpretation of the verse will have to take into account Jesus' more direct statements about violence.

[steve]

jriccitelli,

I would like to give you some counsel about how to gain more respect at this forum:

1. Write less;

2. Listen more;

3. When you must write, do so intelligibly;

4. Do not answer arguments that you do not understand;

5. Do not make arguments on a subject where you don't know what is being debated;

6. Underline much less;

7. Don't assume that you are necessarily smarter than the person you are arguing with (it may occasionally be the case, but let others be the ones to make that judgment from reading your posts).

These are friendly, constructive criticisms.

[mattrose]

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. 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’.

I think it is appropriate for military and police to have weapons... largely for the very reason you mention (a deterrent). So, once again, your 'argument' consists of things both sides of the debate already agree about.

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.

Now this is new and worth responding to. It appears, here, you are saying that when an officer kills a bad guy it is not violence. And since I am only against 'violence' I should be OK with the officer shooting the bad guy (and the same applies to a non-officer defending someone). It probably is appropriate to better define what we are talking about with the word 'violence.' In this conversation, I have been talking about killing. My point, all along, has been that it is never appropriate for a Christian to kill an enemy. Of course, given what we have already talked about, it IS sometimes appropriate for a police officer to do so. It is sometimes appropriate for a soldier to kill an enemy combatant. This is exactly why I don't think it is appropriate for Christians to be in those positions. We can both agree, I think, that uncontrolled anger and aggression is always wrong for the Christian. Where we disagree, it seems, is that you think controlled anger and aggression that takes the form of physical violence up to and including the death of the 'bad guy' is appropriate for Christians.

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 do no 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.

Of course.

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).

I agree that the attacker is the violent one, not the defender.

I agree that if there is no time to call the professionals, one should try to stop the attacker (this has been my position all along in this debate).

I am even open to the idea that in a rare case, it could be necessary for a non-officer to temporarily assume the role of the police and act quickly to end a potentially violent situation.

My point is... that's not a kingdom action. And here's the part that's likely to rile you up. It's not a kingdom action, even if it is the appropriate action. I think the reason that line might rile you up is b/c you think that by saying it is not a kingdom action I am saying it is a sinful action. Reading over our discussion so far, I think that may be where I didn't communicate very clearly (although I tried). I'll say it again. I don't believe that soldiers sin by being soldiers. I don't think that police officers sin by being police officers. I think both are legitimate roles in the current age. My point all along has been that Christians are called to be set apart for a very different role.

What riles me up is not that Christians on a rare occasion resort to violence when all else seems to have failed. What riles me up is that Christians resort to it too early, too often, too positively. What riles me up is that Christians sometimes seem to have bought in to the lie that violence is a long term solution rather than quick fix. What gets me riled up is that Christians would call the exception the rule. What gets me riled up is that Christians would point to the killing of a bad guy as the 'Christian' thing to do. The killing of a bad guy is sometimes the right thing to do in this fallen age, but is is not the 'Christian' thing to do. God has more going on than just the church, but the church is the most important thing God has going on... and its purity should be protected.

[jriccitelli]

This is a poor argument. Obviously (I think we would agree), there are certain occupations that are incompatible with Christianity (prostitute, pagan priest, etc.). Our whole discussion is about whether or not 'soldier' or 'police officer' fit into that category…’

Your argument is that police and military are not compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity.
My argument is that some Bishops and preachers are not compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity.
Therefore; it follows that the occupation of Bishops and preachers fit into the same category.
It all depends on how the individual behaves. A good officer upholds Christian principles, and defending people from injustice is Christian. Sounds like a good point to me.

Why do you assume I'm 'hanging this all on the verse in Matt 5:38-39'? You started this thread. I've just responded. I have not aggressively built my case.

Well I am not knew to this debate, like I said a family member also is a pacifist, and if you want to back up your case with another verse feel free, but remember someone died for that freedom.

I have only responded to false information about my view’ (Matt)

1. Your view is that Kingdom Christians should not serve in the police or military.
2. Your view is that you can (always) protect someone without using extreme force.
Has this changed, or is this your view?

My point was; 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 – what do we do then?
Do we stop our defense? Or do we continue to protect the victim(s).
This is the line; If you stop, you leave the situation dangerous, and the victim undefended.
Say an officer (or the victim) tries all they can to settle the situation, yet the attacker continues, what now? This is ‘the line’ to make; do you save the victim, or the attacker?

My position has nothing to do with not defending others. This is about the 5th time I've told you this.

Although you have not shown me how far you would go in defending a victim (and defending an attack most commonly involves a lot of physical force and strength). You are promoting a view that says a kingdom Christian woman could not even ‘fight’ off an attacker. Such an attack would geerally demand a woman use skilled ‘damaging’ blows and punches to vital organs and areas in order to stop a larger stronger attacker,this should be the women’s prerogative as it is effective. A woman can choose if she would rather die fighting than being raped. I would hold the same conviction, again that's a personal choice.

So your response to my complaint that pacifism is always judged by the >1% hypothetical situations is to remind me that you stated, from the outset, that that was your direct intention? (matt pg3)

In all the hundreds of cases (happening everyday) where the attacker will ‘not’ stop - it is 100%. And again these are not hypothetical, they are happening this very moment, all over, and again in every jail and prison the inmates are kept in – ‘because’ of the authority vested in the sword. (If you want to test your theory, do prison ministry, and ask the guards to leave)

Are you suggesting killing all such attackers is on the table for Christians? (matt pg3)

A true Christian should be far more understanding, discerning, and full of grace than a secular officer or soldier and we have thousands of stories and examples of this. Killing ‘all’ such… and you accuse 'me' of having ‘your’ position wrong????? You know better than this, I explained my position in my opening second paragraph.

We are a kingdom of priests and still we are everything else also, servants, soldiers, it does not say we are only priests’ (Me) This simply doesn't make your point. Each metaphor has a meaning. Are you seriously suggesting that when the church is compared to an army of soldiers that it means the church is supposed to utilize violence? (Matt pg3)

No of course not, again the extreme stretch, and I meant the context of actual soldiers, maids, mothers, candle stick makers. Yet still it seems odd Paul would use analogies of good soldiers if he felt they were wrong. It would be like saying; be a good Christian murderer, a good Christian liar, a good Christian adulterer… it makes no sense if being a soldier was wrong occupation, or position to be in.

‘This now demonstrates a pattern of over-extending biblical metaphors. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus' use of the sheep metaphor was intended to mean that sometimes Jesus kills people? (Matt pg3)

Think about it; does a good shepherd ‘let’ the wolf kill him?
‘You’ are mixing metaphors; Jesus was the ‘Lamb’ in death, the shepherds were Israel ‘the bad shepherd’.
The bad shepherds put to death the lamb, and allowed a wolf to live (Barabbas)
The context is that the Good shepherd defends the sheep ‘with’ His life.
For handfuls of barley and fragments of bread, you have profaned Me to My people to put to death some who should not die and to keep others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies" (Ezek 13:19)

But my interaction with you seems unproductive b/c of your refusal to actually listen to what I'm saying. We disagree. But it does nothing to just keep re-stating your disagreement with a misrepresentation of me.

You continue to think a defense is violence, and physical force unto death is of untenable consideration for a Christian.

What is it you want me to do? Go on a murderous rampage? Pg3

Again a real extreme perversion of my belief in protecting people from harm.

[jriccitelli]

Homer great article, I checked out some references and they hold, I have heard before about the Armenian Church’s rebellion against Rome before, but never thought of it in this context, real interesting.

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: (Steve F)

You have to match the power of any attack with same, it is just physics, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. Note that even Bobbies (and crooks know they) can call the armed police that are ready to respond (the AFO). But that’s another issue, physics that is.

[SteveF]

You have to match the power of any attack with same, it is just physics, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. Note that even Bobbies (and crooks know they) can call the armed police that are ready to respond (the AFO). But that’s another issue, physics that is.

As I said, that could be another debate, but I'm not entering it. My thoughts are not simplistic on this matter and would derail this thread.

[mattrose]

Your argument is that police and military are not compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity.
My argument is that some Bishops and preachers are not compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity.
Therefore; it follows that the occupation of Bishops and preachers fit into the same category.
It all depends on how the individual behaves. A good officer upholds Christian principles, and defending people from injustice is Christian. Sounds like a good point to me.

Well obviously the word 'some' changes everything here. If you can't see the logical fallacy created by your addition of the word 'some' then I'm not sure what else to say. When police in military do their job correctly... they are doing a good thing. But it is not a kingdom thing. When bishops and preachers do their job correctly... they are doing a good thing. And it is a kingdom thing. We're not talking about corruption, here, we're talking about a job well done. It makes no sense to compare a corrupt cleric to an ideal soldier.

Well I am not knew to this debate, like I said a family member also is a pacifist, and if you want to back up your case with another verse feel free, but remember someone died for that freedom.

I've already made my case on this message board. This thread is specific to the question 'can a Christian be a pacifist' (which, by the way, is quite an amazing question consider the opposite question was the one of interest to the early church!).

1. Your view is that Kingdom Christians should not serve in the police or military.
2. Your view is that you can (always) protect someone without using extreme force.
Has this changed, or is this your view?

I never said you can always protect someone without using extreme force. My argument is not of the pragmatic variety.

My point was; 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 – what do we do then?
Do we stop our defense? Or do we continue to protect the victim(s).
This is the line; If you stop, you leave the situation dangerous, and the victim undefended.
Say an officer (or the victim) tries all they can to settle the situation, yet the attacker continues, what now? This is ‘the line’ to make; do you save the victim, or the attacker?

As I said, if all non-violent methods have been tried and proven unsuccessful... there are a number of options. One could potentially take on the role of an officer (similar to when someone makes a citizens arrest). One could sacrifice oneself and hope that this changes the situation so as to allow others to escape or shock the attacker into inaction. I am sure there are many possibilities.

If it is an officer to begin with, they have every right to kill the attacker in an extreme situation. Have I said otherwise?

Although you have not shown me how far you would go in defending a victim (and defending an attack most commonly involves a lot of physical force and strength). You are promoting a view that says a kingdom Christian woman could not even ‘fight’ off an attacker. Such an attack would geerally demand a woman use skilled ‘damaging’ blows and punches to vital organs and areas in order to stop a larger stronger attacker,this should be the women’s prerogative as it is effective. A woman can choose if she would rather die fighting than being raped. I would hold the same conviction, again that's a personal choice.

Do I really have to describe every possible method? I could advocate the use of tazers, for example. I have no problem with such a method in extreme situations. I am NOT promoting a view that says a kingdom Christian woman could not even 'fight' off an attacker. Where did I say that? I am not against the use of physicality insofar as it is not life threatening and in a defensive situation. There are skills one can learn to temporarily disable a man (come on, get creative!). One proven method in rape situations, I've discovered, is to force yourself to throw up. This generally causes the attacker to abort his plan.

In all the hundreds of cases (happening everyday) where the attacker will ‘not’ stop - it is 100%. And again these are not hypothetical, they are happening this very moment, all over, and again in every jail and prison the inmates are kept in – ‘because’ of the authority vested in the sword. (If you want to test your theory, do prison ministry, and ask the guards to leave)

Frustratingly, this paragraph represents a TOTAL IGNORANCE of my position. I am in favor of God's plan to create governments in this present age. I think God is smart. Why would I ask the guards to leave if I believe they are performing a God-given role?

Yet still it seems odd Paul would use analogies of good soldiers if he felt they were wrong. It would be like saying; be a good Christian murderer, a good Christian liar, a good Christian adulterer… it makes no sense if being a soldier was wrong occupation, or position to be in.

It would not be like that. Being a soldier is not a sin for a non-Christian. Being a murderer is.

Again a real extreme perversion of my belief in protecting people from harm.

Not so much an extreme perversion as a joke, perhaps a bad one. Earlier in the thread I was using the word 'violence' in the sense of using physical force to kill someone. I did not intend to demand that Christian may never use physicality to defend.

[Singalphile]

I daresay that we'd probably come pretty close to 100% agreement on how a Christian should respond in any real, specific situation.

Aside from the specific pacifist/military/police question, I think I remain unconvinced that a good deed or occupation for a non-Christian is a "non-Kingdom" deed or occupation for a believer. Even if I am able to eventually wrap my head around that, I don't see how I'd know (for others) what occupations fall into that category. I am not aware of any passage that teaches that government jobs in particular are reserved for non-Christians (Rom 13, 1 Peter 2, or others).

Christians and non-Christians are in and under the jurisdiction and authority of both their government and God, where God is the ultimate authority, of course. People in the same jurisdiction are responsible for obeying the same laws, whether or not they acknowledge the authority as they should. Christians are indeed citizens and priests of God's kingdom while at the same time citizens of the U.S., Canada, Mexico, etc. and also salesmen, laborers, lawyers, etc. These jobs rely to some extent on an environment governed by the enforcement of laws. If the laws are good and just, then so is their just enforcement, I think. So I can't see policemen, soldiers, and Christians as necessarily exclusive groups. It's difficult to see how or why those who are in the wrong relationship with the ultimate authority - God - would nonetheless be exclusively given the duty to act rightfully and commendably on behalf of the lesser authority. Usually the one in the proper relationship with the authority is exempt from certain laws in certain situations. In any case, as mentioned, I don't see this distinction taught in Scripture.

I may have stopped making sense a few sentences ago. I'll lastly say that I think that forceful action can be loving and not necessarily vengeful or evil, which we can see in both of the God-ordained (but very different) duties of government and parenthood.

[jriccitelli]

My argument is that some Bishops and preachers are not compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity (Me)

My argument is that some officers are also 'not' compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity (aggressive ones)

When police in military do their job correctly... they are doing a good thing (Matt)

Doing their job would be to fully protect victims, not back out if the attacker gets 'too' violent. I was showing that it is not the occupation necessarily that makes it good or bad, it is the Christian way in which you do your job. Not with violence or aggression, this could apply to any occupation, even a homemaker or Baker.

‘… But it is not a kingdom thing’

When David cut off Goliaths head, that was a KING thing, David saved Israel that day. When David killed Bathsheba’s husband, that was a sin. You do see the difference, right?

… quite an amazing question consider the opposite question was the one of interest to the early church!

Again, the Romans were completely Pagan yet still there is no indication in scripture of service as unchristian. Neither would becoming a Governor, public official, or tax collector be acceptable – at that time (Note Homers link also)

‘I never said you can always protect someone without using extreme force. My argument is not of the pragmatic variety’

So you ‘are’ saying; A Christian ‘can’ protect someone using extreme force, if necessary?
Or are you still saying; It is wrong for a Christian (?).

If it is an officer to begin with, they have every right to kill the attacker in an extreme situation. Have I said otherwise?

Yes, but still the post was; Can a Christian be a pacifist? (Their was never a question about unbelievers)
You keep reverting back to us that Christians shouldn’t be officers, or service men.

There are skills one can learn to temporarily disable a man (come on, get creative!). One proven method in rape situations, I've discovered, is to force yourself to throw up. This generally causes the attacker to abort his plan.

Throw up? By that time your 'being' raped. Creative? I guess your strategy is to run around in circles until you dizzy your opponent and hope he will fall over. This certainly is creative, and it is wearing me down, but I am not going to suggest my daughter or friends try this. In emergency situations, the definition implies that the best defense is to never waste time. One proven method for danger is to do something dumb, any training would tell you to act quickly, faster than the attacker that is. It doesn’t seem to bother attackers to get blood and guts on them, I do not know why vomit is going to stop someone. We are not talking about romance.
Have you ever been in a violent situation? Have you ever had to deal with a violent man (or two) there is no time to get creative, if they advance you have to ‘stop’ them, it is never pretty, or predictable. It may depend on where you live, your town, or who your in-laws are.

Frustratingly, this paragraph represents a TOTAL IGNORANCE of my position… Being a soldier is not a sin for a non-Christian. Being a murderer is’

Again; the post was; Can a ‘Christian’ be a pacifist?

[mattrose]

My argument is that some officers are also 'not' compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity (aggressive ones)

Doing their job would be to fully protect victims, not back out if the attacker gets 'too' violent.

Your argument, here, is that some officers do their job well (they don't too quickly become violent). We agree that such people aren't compatible with the kingdom. I take it a step further (which I'll continue to talk about below), but there is nothing disagreeable here. Your argument, in this quote, is an argument with nobody.

I was showing that it is not the occupation necessarily that makes it good or bad, it is the Christian way in which you do your job. Not with violence or aggression, this could apply to any occupation, even a homemaker or Baker.

I agree that it is not the occupation NECESSARILY that makes it good or bad (any occupation can be performed in a corrupt manner). But even you added the word 'necessarily' which shows that some occupations potentially are inherently compatible with Christianity or not. So, once again, what you 'showed' isn't anything that we disagree about since all you showed is that it is not the occupation 'necessarily' that makes it incompatible.

When David cut off Goliaths head, that was a KING thing, David saved Israel that day. When David killed Bathsheba’s husband, that was a sin. You do see the difference, right?

Haha. Since your first argument didn't actually argue anything... and the thing you then showed didn't show anything... it led you to ask this pretty ridiculous question. Yes, I see the difference. The first example was a military killing (which God ordains). The second was a personal murder (which God does not). If you seriously had to ask me if I understood the difference it only goes to prove that you haven't actually understood my position!

Again, the Romans were completely Pagan

In what sense were they completely pagan? Did they not have some laws that were moral in nature? Was murder legal? I assume, based on this quote, that you are suggesting that the United States government is far less pagan. What does that really mean? Is the US government somewhat Christian? Is it only 10% pagan?

yet still there is no indication in scripture of service as unchristian. Neither would becoming a Governor, public official, or tax collector be acceptable – at that time (Note Homers link also)

Who cares? Even if there WAS a passage listing 10 banned occupations (and the list included all the occupations we're talking about), it wouldn't much matter to you because you would just attribute that to how 'completely pagan' the Roman Empire was. So we're not really looking for a concrete statement to begin with, are we? We're looking for biblical principles from Jesus. I think there's a biblical principle from Jesus that Christians shouldn't kill their enemies. You disagree. I don't even claim that there are absolutely no exceptions to the rule, but still you insist on disagreeing with me.

So you ‘are’ saying; A Christian ‘can’ protect someone using extreme force, if necessary?
Or are you still saying; It is wrong for a Christian (?).

A Christian can use physicality for defense (or to stop the attacker from attacking without killing him). There may even be extreme cases where a Christian could temporarily take on the role of the state (but this wouldn't be a Christian action, it would temporarily performing the states role). It is not a Christian action to kill an enemy. I am amazed that this is a controversial statement.

the post was; Can a Christian be a pacifist? (Their was never a question about unbelievers)
You keep reverting back to us that Christians shouldn’t be officers, or service men.

The original question is absurd unless 'pacifist' is defined in a way that could not properly be given as a label to anyone that has ever been on this message board.

Throw up? By that time your 'being' raped. Creative? I guess your strategy is to run around in circles until you dizzy your opponent and hope he will fall over. This certainly is creative, and it is wearing me down, but I am not going to suggest my daughter or friends try this. In emergency situations, the definition implies that the best defense is to never waste time. One proven method for danger is to do something dumb, any training would tell you to act quickly, faster than the attacker that is. It doesn’t seem to bother attackers to get blood and guts on them, I do not know why vomit is going to stop someone. We are not talking about romance.

Let's think this through:

Scenario... a woman is alone (no way of getting human help) and about to get raped (the man has made his intentions clear).

CASE STUDY 1: She has no gun on her
In such a case, you and I would both agree, I think, that she has every right and duty to physically defend herself as best as possible. If she is unable to physically defend herself, I suggested that she throw up as a last resort... b/c there are documented cases where that has deterred the violent attacker. You ridiculed this advice. All I was saying that is if she has no hope of defending herself or getting outside help, this is a good thing to try. It is also non-violent.

CASE STUDY 2: She has a gun on her
In such a case, you and I would both agree, I think, that she should try to use some non-violent means to either get away or get help. But what should she do if neither of those options are available? Do you think she should shoot the potential rapist before he gets close to her and her opportunity is gone? Do you think she should try to shoot him in the head, heart, or legs? I'm genuinely curious. You seem to think that my position is that she should just lay down, throw up, and get raped. I never said any such thing. If she had a gun, I would urge her to wave it before he got close. If he persisted in aggressive moves toward her, I would urge her to fire a warning shot near his feet. If he persisted still (or the 2nd step could be skipped altogether depending on proximity/timing), I would not object to her attempting to disable him by shooting him in the leg. What I would never counsel her to do is attempt to kill the man (he may die accidentally, of course). Would you?

My point is, depending on how you answer those questions.... our positions are either pretty similar... or you are way to willing to kill people.

Have you ever been in a violent situation? Have you ever had to deal with a violent man (or two) there is no time to get creative, if they advance you have to ‘stop’ them, it is never pretty, or predictable. It may depend on where you live, your town, or who your in-laws are.

Relatively speaking, I wouldn't say I've ever been in a violent situation. I was, once in a while, bullied in school. I've been physically punched, spit on, etc.

I agree that there is often no time to 'get creative.' That is exactly why I think it is important to discuss creative approaches to violence before hand AND why it is important to walk in the Spirit (who may very well endow us with sudden inspiration).

There is, quite often, a big difference between stopping them and killing them.

Again; the post was; Can a ‘Christian’ be a pacifist?

Strangely enough, this post was a spin-off of my good friday message. I posted my good friday devotional about how Christian sacrifice, in the Spirit of the cross, is a powerful thing. You recommended, quite politely, that I should consider illustrating my point further by including the sacrifices of military men.

I responded by saying:

While I am thankful for the troops... and while they are a great example of sacrifice... my theme was kingdom sacrifice. I, personally, feel that military efforts are sacrifices for worldly nations or principles like freedom, but they are not specifically kingdom sacrifices. In fact, in my opinion, the very method of the military is in pretty stark contrast with kingdom principles.

[/quote]

My point was, military people do indeed make sacrifices... but they are not cross-shaped sacrifices. Jesus didn't die in that kind of war. He died willingly (like military men), but also because of his refusal to resort to violence (unlike military men). There are cross shaped sacrifices and sword shaped sacrifices.