As a Christian, I am to love my neighbors and my enemies and the rest of mankind as myself. You are I see eye to eye on this basic point of Christianity. Cool.
It is my belief that the basic function of government is to protect a citizen’s inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. As a member of a society or as a citizen of a country, I surrender my rights to enact justice as an individual and transfer those rights to the government. So, if a member of my family is murdered, I have no right to go enact justice on my own, but it is my government’s duty to pursue justice. The same is true for violations of my liberty and property. The pursuit of justice is Biblical. The verse is there. Paul is clearly saying that the pursuit of justice belongs to governments, not to individuals, who he addresses in the first part of Chapter 13. Therefore, the pursuit of justice and loving one’s enemies are not in conflict.
Now, non-violence is not Biblical. The Bible clearly makes distinctions between the actions of individuals (me and you) and the actions of governments (the US in Iraq – We can argue about just war theory later. Just go with it for now). Government’s wield the sword. Individuals do not. And no where in scripture are soldiers condemned for doing their duty. They are told to be fair and upright, but not to abandon their service. Pacisfism and non-violence is a philosophy that is thought up in the comfort and security caused by someone else killing a bunch of people. And by its nature, it is anti-good and pro-evil.
You are right, Saddam was divinely placed, and I can’t answer why. But I firmly believe that the people are granted inherent rights (life, liberty, property) and when those rights are trampled, they are fully justified in throwing out their oppressors. Violently, if need be.

Pacifism is the rejection of all violence. So if the Nazis are rolling into town you are expected under pacifist philosophy to surrender. You surely can’t fight back. Luckily there are not many pacifists when tanks are actually rolling down the street. Where the pacifists live are in secure countries that were secured by people killing people. The irony is magnificent. Nevertheless, the issue arises when these highbrown pacifists sit in their ivory tower and codemn the use of violence when the Nazis are rolling into a country that they are not in. It doesn’t matter what your justification is for not supporting the resistance of evil, the bottomline is you are not resisting. Logically, the lack of resistance is no different the support of evil. George Bush was not wrong when he said “if you are not with us, you are against us.” Pacifism is not a well thought out philosophy. George Orwell calls it a “bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.”
The Sermon on the Mount is addressed to individuals not governments. Individuals are to love their enemies and turn the other cheek and reject an eye for an eye. Governments are to pursue justice. Congress could be composed entirely of monks, but the duty of government would remain the same and evil and violence would still exist in the world.

Wanted to share this interesting quote I found, in light of all the Nazi talk, ” Hermann Göring described, during an interviewat the Nuremberg Trials, how denouncing and outlawing pacifism was an important part of the Nazis’ seizure of power: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Compelling, no?

I have to agree it does show the power of fear and propaganda, it shows what happens when you denounce and discredit people who stand against evil by non violent means. Then you whip up fear driven patriotism and we see what can happen. Sometimes a lack of patriotism can be a good thing, as it can show that you think and do not blindly follow a government that may be unjust. This was a high ranking Nazi telling strategy and pacifism is number one on his hit list. If violence is so powerful a weapon, then why would the Nazis have any reason to fear non violent opposition?

I see now why we are missing each other so drastically, we have very different ideas on eschatology. I will not bore you with my understanding, as it is vastly different due largely to my historical and prophetic interpretations. I also have a slightly less negative view of humanity. I believe that people are disconnected from the will of God and do , sin, but I do not see them as wholly depraved. Thus I still hold hope for all people that they can accomplish good and naively possibly peace.

This is why we are totally missing the entirety of our ideas. I understand better now, and know there is no way you will agree with me. We will all die no matter what heroic actions we take, so I choose to try and be a loving peaceful, and I guess too liberal, light to those around me.

Once again, why I say that secular government has the right to wage war, thank you Matt as we do agree on that, but Christians need to stand on the side of peace.

Yes there are bad people, many of whom will not change their ways in this life, I know this. I am a realist, but I hold myself and the church to higher ideals. We may not accomplish them, but we should try.

The flipside of this is, why doesn’t God act? Are we to take his non action aa affirmation of events or as an invitation to act on our own? If we say we believe in prayer what are we to do when they aren’t answered how we would like? I agree in comment sense and see your point clearly, but it does raise interesting questions.

Ask a Jew if they think war should not have been declared against Germany in World War II.

When I vote I hope I get to vote for leaders who are Christians as individuals themselves. I hope Christ guides their decision making and grants them wisdom. But I don’t want to live in a theocracy. I firmly believe in the seperation of church of state, but to me that seperation keeps the government out of the church, not the church away from government. Regardless, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. Government’s job is to preserve life, liberty, and property. I don’t want them to do anything else. The type of people that make a up a government does not change its role. I prefer Christian leaders, but the Constitution limits Christians and non-Christians alike.
As for MLK Jr, now that is interesting. I know they teach it differently in public education, but I don’t consider him a non-violence success story. The Civil Rights Movement created a spectacle of the conditions under Jim Crow and highlighted them to the rest of the country. This was realistically the only option they had. Let’s say hypothetically though, the US wasn’t a free country and sympathetic white Republicans from the north couldn’t vote in congress…would the civil rights and voting rights act ever been passed. I doubt it. Democracy restored the inherent rights of America’s citizens, not non-violence. Ghandi was parading around England and almost propped up by the Brits. The Brits liked him because they knew he wouldn’t fight them. Ghandi didn’t kick the English out of India, the cost of empire in a post WWII economy did. As for the Tibetan Monks, they non-violently “resist” all the time, but the Chinese are still firmly in control. I can not think of any true example of non-violence ever winning out against oppression.

I see all of those things as being victories simply because it took their social protests to change the minds of others. Yes, sometimes there are many factors, but the fact remains non violence leaves a lasting largely positive legacy. And just like war, it sometimes takes awhile for victory, I.e. Tibet, but sometimes we must suffer for our cause. Soldiers and pacifists both suffer to accomplish their goals, but only one group does so without killing its enemy.

Interesting thoughts on government as well. I definitely agree we don’t want a theocracy. Thanks for sharing.

Matt, non-violent action rooted in pacifist principles has been behind some of the most profound political changes in the 20th century. Do you consider India’s emancipation from the British Empire, or the Civil Rights Movement, or the Phillipine ouster of Ferdinand Marcos, or Poland’s Solidarity Movement, or Georgia’s “Rose Revolution,” to all be “anti-good and pro-evil”?

Also consider that many of the Christian figures who have so inspired contemporary Christian pacifists–the early Anabaptists–were far from the comfortable, secure middle-class liberals you seem to dislike. Read up on Dirk Willems, or take a look at the Martyr’s Mirror.

You do raise some important points, but your blanket generalizations against pacifism lead me to suspect that your opposition is rooted in ideology rather than a nuanced understanding of the issues.

“Pacifism” might be a problematic term because to many it implies passivity. However, non-violent action has been extremely effective during the last century (I notice that you only referenced the first two of my examples–take a look at this list for considerably more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution), particularly if it is proactive. The old saw always raised against pacifists is “what would you have done about Hitler?” The answer, of course, is that a mobilized Christian population acting in sacrificial love even toward the most hated members of society would never have allowed Hitler to take control as he did. More Dietrich Bonhoeffers, rather than hordes of young people convinced that it was their duty to fight and die for their country, would have created a very different 20th century Germany.

Ultimately, pacifism will always seem foolish in the eyes of the world because it is organized on the “logic” of Jesus, not that of humanity. Yes, you can take a hermeneutic toward Scripture that allows you to support governments that rule by force, and even perhaps to participate in their forceful action firsthand. But to me (and millions of past & present Anabaptist brethren), the pacifist stance is much more readily supported by the Bible. Postmodern liberals like it because it fits in with a narrative arc built around Jesus’ twin commandments, but many super-conservative (think Amish) biblical literalists like it too because, well, you know, it’s laid out in black and white. Until you start getting to the other literal statements that seem to support war, but now I’m talking like a postmodernist again and you clearly don’t like that

But you already know all of this, because the peace-related posts always dredge up the same tortured responses. I still can’t resist entering the, err, “fight” every so often.

Hey dude,

I think we’re just pissing each other off here by being condescending, so I’m going to call it quits, OK? I’m clearly not convincing you of anything, and you’re certainly not changing my mind. To me it looks like you’re not relying much on the Bible in your case for force, which confirms my opinion that pacifism is hard to support without some appeal to supernatural justice (I’m sure many atheistic pacifists would argue with me here, of course). I’m operating out of the paradigm that Christians are called to be faithful to Christ’s teachings, not to be effective or successful in the eyes of the world. However, I also know that many Christians find a pragmatic “Christian realist” response which includes provisions for just war to make more sense. OK then.

BTW, a scholar named Mark Thiessen Nation is currently challenging the accepted wisdom on Bonhoeffer & the assassination attempt. Admittedly, I’m sympathetic to his argument because I want to believe it’s true. Just like pretty much everybody’s doing in their own way with everything argued on this entire page.

Cheers,
the other Matt

I’m speaking about reality. When cops go and kick down the door of a bank robber, that is violent behavior, and those guys should be prepared to defend themselves with deadly force. That’s maintaining justice with the sword. Fascism, one of the two greatest threats to freedom and human decency in the 20th century was beaten back with war. Maintaing justice with the sword again. The list of examples can go on.
My previous post was written in a hurry and not worded well. I believe that only governments have the right to weild violent force. And I believe there are criteria that should be applied before any violence force is authorized and it should always be the very last option on the table. Whether we are talking about taking a bank robber to jail, or kicking Hitler out of France.
Individuals on the other hand, are to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek. We, as individuals give up our right to enact justice on earth to governments and have faith that the ultimate justice will come from Jesus Christ.

That is false doctrine belief and directly violates Matthew 5:19. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial law, so we do not have to practice sacrifice, but Jesus did come to wipe away the law and replace it with new beliefs. What Jesus did was to challenge us to go further than the law required; not only to not murder, but to not even be angry, ect.

Yes, there are cases where war is a sin. The Catholic Church was opposed to the Iraq war, and agreed with them from the beginning. It was not a just war. I’m not saying all war is okay.

You fully admit that a lot of the things you suggest are already happening, although maybe not to the extent that you desire. Still, war has not ceased. Jesus himself said that wars are the beginning of birth pains, implying that as time goes on, there will be more wars and more intense wars. As long as we are in the world, there will be war. It does not absolve us from trying to make peace, but Jesus guarantees we will see war. There is evil in the world, and only the return of Jesus will see it end.

I appreciate our discussions too, but I hope that you rely more on the Bible. At least make a case from the Bible; I might disagree with your interpretation but at least I’ll know that you have read it!

What I am saying is that contradictions in the Bible are rarely in conflict, but rather, two aspects of the same situation. I suggest you listen to the interview between Rick Warren and John Piper (I believe on Piper’s website), and Rick Warren speaks about this eloquently. It is foolish to invalidate one and uphold the other; we need to challenge ourselves to see how both are valid at the same time, even though God’s ways are higher than our own and it is sometimes hard to understand (and sometimes we may never).

I don’t think it is wrong for a Christian to be in the military which is what you are implying. In fact, I find it pretty disgusting and reprehensible that anyone would even infer that Christians are somehow sinning when they join or participate in the U.S. military. I think it is secular liberalism at its worst.

Technical difficulties.

….life, it is a sin. If we do it we should be honest about it and ask forgiveness for it. God did not intend for us to run around shooting each other, that is a consequence of our disconnectedness from God’s ways. Are soldiers more sinfil than the rest of us? No, but killing, like lying, is a sin.

It is funny how we would probably agree on quite a lot, but we do have some good differences. It is interesting you should share your hope that I find conservative christianity and drop the progressive ways that I currently espouse, because I have made the opposite journey as you. I grew up very conservative, both politically and theologically, but the more I read of the bible and the more I prayed the more “liberal” I became. I grew up southern Baptist and now I have a much more generous orthodoxy. I do believe I understand scripture just fine and do feel closer to God than ever. If you are ever interested in hearing from the other side of christianity check out the “homebrewed Christianity” podcast or website, you probably won’t agree with much, but it will be a diffetent experience, kind of like when I listen to Driscoll or Piper. By the way, I am just curious, you dont have to answer, but are you a calvinist? After the two suggestions, I was just curious. Thank you for your continued stimulating discussion, (and please dont let what I ever say truly upset you) and for your wishes for my continuing spiritual growth. I really mean that and wish you the same, only backwards. Ha.

Thanks for telling me about your background, it really helps me understand a little better. Like I said, I may be more on the “liberal” side, but I bet we still have more common ground than not.

I do agree with you that too many liberal Christians ignore the bible, that is something I am thankful for when it comes to my evangelical roots. And yes too many people on both sides of the aisle, become consumed with doing right to feel good or do their duty, when it should be an overflow of Christ’s love in their lives. Though I think more liberals than you might think, still value the great commission, they ate just coming at it from a different angle. If we can all learn to be a bit more grnerous with each other, I think we could accomplish great things. Most of us have the same goals in mind, we just have to remember we are family. And sometimes its good to bump heads, otherwise how will we challenge our beliefs.

Thanks again and I look forward to bumping heads and coming back together in the future.

Ha. Maybe next time then