By Keith Pavlischek
Following my first Shane Claiborne blog post, it seemed necessary to round out my critique of the Simple Way leader’s incredibly simplistic Biblicism. I’m almost inclined to call it a left-wing fundamentalism, but that would be an insult to fundamentalists everywhere. Matt Tuininga reports the following:
When asked whether he thought violence was ever justified Claiborne turned to the story of Jesus and Peter when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane. “Peter picked up the sword. I believe Peter had a genuine desire to protect Jesus. And he had the best case for redemptive violence that there ever was in the world. He was trying to protect God’s only Son, the Messiah.” But Jesus rebuked Peter and showed grace to the man who had come to arrest him. And the early Christians interpreted this story to mean that “when Jesus disarmed Peter he disarmed every one of us… For Christ we can die, but we cannot kill.”
But this doesn’t answer the question. The issue is not whether we should “kill for Christ” (that’s a straw man), or promote something called “redemptive violence” (another straw man–as if any responsible Christian proponent of just war believes in “redemptive violence”), but whether the civil authority can permissibly use lethal force to protect the innocent, promote the good, and punish the evil doer. The question is not whether individual Christians should be longsuffering and should turn the other cheek. The question is whether civil authority is obliged to turn to turn the cheek of innocent citizens toward their oppressor, rather than using their authority, including the threat and use of force, to defend them from assault, oppression and other forms of grave injustice.
Claiborne’s simplistic text-proofing proves too much. As Tuininga reports, when it comes to the issue of using force, the bottom line for Claiborne amounts to this: “Does it look like Jesus? Does it look like the cross?” Claiborne’s appeal to the example of Jesus’ crucifixion is typical among contemporary neo-Anabaptists. And important. And theologically incoherent.
What makes it theologically incoherent? Contemporary neo-Anabaptists invariably propose an alternative to the use of “violence” by the state namely, “nonviolent direct action.” Being a “pacifist,” we are told ad nauseum, is not to be “passive,” in the face of evil. Christian pacifists should be, we are endlessly told, be like Ghandi or Martin Luther King and pursue strategies of “active nonviolent resistance” in the face of evil and oppression. This is always and everywhere proposed, even for legitimate political authority, as the alternative to “violence” and as an alternative to Christian just war theory.
One problem is that it is risible to suppose that these “nonviolent” strategies will be effective in the face of great evil. But more fundamentally, the problem is that you can’t generate an ethic of active nonviolent resistance by through an appeal to the “cross.” Jesus’s suffering and death on the cross was example self-sacrificing passive non-resistanceto evil and injustice not active resistance, nonviolent or otherwise. Moreover, Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, but he didn’t go on to instruct Peter and his disciples to organize Christian Peacemaking Teams to prevent his unjust crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, to organize boycotts, or to go limp in front of an oppressive Roman police force, or to stage sit-ins and teach-ins or whatever. Jesus didn’t counsel his disciples in some sort of proto-Ghandian style nonviolent active civil disobedience and resistance, probably because Jesus was not proto-Ghandian.
To be sure, as the old hymn has it, he could have called 10,000 angels with drawn swords to prevent his own unjust crucifixion. But Jesus didn’t do it. Claiborne and the neo-Anabaptists tell us that is all we need to know about the use of force. Follow Jesus’ example, they tell us.
But then Jesus could have called on 10,000 angels to organize a program of nonviolent direct action to prevent his unjust crucifixion as well. I don’t suspect that Claiborne and other neo-Anabaptist/ new monastic gurus would find this to be a particularly compelling argument against various strategies of active nonviolence resistance or against Christian Peacemaking Teams. Nor should they. But neither should Christian non-pacifists find all that convincing Claiborne’s suggestion that Christ’s self-sacrificing, passive non-resistant suffering on the cross is the be all and end all model for civil authorities who have been ordained by God with the task of promoting the good and opposing evil.
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 30, 2012 at 12:39 pm
As you might expect, Keith, I find your critique of pacifism here to be rather infantile. I will gladly acknowledge that I don’t know Claiborne, so I can’t speak to what his positions are. But you are making sweeping charges against what you call neo-Anabaptists, and that I can address, at least from my perspective (and I would likely fit into this “neo-Anabaptist” crowd). You say…
Claiborne’s appeal to the example of Jesus’ crucifixion is typical among contemporary neo-Anabaptists. And important. And theologically incoherent.
I would just point out that it’s not ONLY the anabaptists who appeal to the example of Jesus’ crucfixion (and anabaptists have always pointed to this, not just the “neo-Anabaptists”), but the early church also followed Jesus’ non-violent example. There is no record for hundreds of years of oppression for the early church where they rose up with arms against the oppression. Peter in his epistle specifically tells us that Jesus suffered and died LEAVING US AN EXAMPLE, to follow in His steps. This is extremely theologically coherent, IF the teachings of Jesus and the early church are important to you.
I would point out again that we have NO biblical command to raise up with war as our defense. Sometimes, in the OT, God specifically told Israel in some specific situations to use deadly violence (going so far as to say to wipe out every man, woman, boy and girl of the “enemy…”), but that was specific exceptions to the consistent rule “shed no innocent blood,” “Love your enemy,” “do unto others as you’d have them do to you,” “overcome evil with good,” etc. OUR command – the teachings consistent from Genesis to Revelation – is to follow in the peaceful steps of Jesus, standing against evil, but overcoming evil not with deadly violence, but with GOOD. And certainly not shedding innocent blood, which is part and parcel of modern warfare.
You say…
One problem is that it is risible to suppose that these “nonviolent” strategies will be effective in the face of great evil. But more fundamentally, the problem is that you can’t generate an ethic of active nonviolent resistance by through an appeal to the “cross.”
As usual, the Christian war-makers’ argument is NOT an appeal to Scripture, but to fear. “IF we don’t fight with deadly violence, bad things will happen.”
And you can generate an NVDA case with an appeal to the cross, for the cross IS an example of NVDA. The civil rights movement, Gandhi, peacemakers throughout history have recognized the power of exposing the evil of the oppressor by letting their deadly violence in the face gracious love speak for itself.
The example of martyrdom is not the only way of NVDA, but it certainly stands as a workable example. You may believe that Jesus and the early church were ineffective in their positions against evil, but I think it is at least as effective as the zealots approach (fighting deadly violence with deadly violence – which did not overcome the evil) and has the added bonus of allowing us to be consistent with Jesus’ teachings and the example of the early church.
Keith, I’m wondering, are you saying that you think that Jesus and the early church were mistaken in their approach to dealing with the evil oppression of the Roman gov’t and the Herodians and others who used deadly violence?
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 30, 2012 at 12:50 pm
As to the point of whether anabaptists/neo-anabaptists believe the state can legitimately “carry the sword,” and whether or not deadly violence is ever called for, a few points…
1. Sure, most of us anabaptists/neo-anabaptists don’t have a problem with the concept of a police force that carries with it at least the potential for violent response to violence.
2. We would point out that there is a huge difference between a police-style use of force, which is never likely to target innocent bystanders or have innocent bystanders placed at risk, whereas “collateral damage” is part of accepted modern military efforts (acknowledging that at least US and many other modern militaries go to great lengths to try to avoid collateral damage – just noting that the presence of civilians has not been enough to stop a deadly action).
3. The biggest point that Christian anabaptists and neo-anabaptists would make is whether or not Christians can take part in such gov’t actions. We can clearly see in the Bible that “the gov’t” has a role to play that involves deadly force. But we see NOTHING in the Bible to suggest that Christians can take part in this. Indeed, we have the evidence of the early church, Jesus and the disciples NOT taking part in the military. And it is THIS example which we are commanded to follow.
4. Further, even though the state has biblical authority to use deadly violence AGAINST WRONG-DOERS, the state nor anyone else has the authority to shed innocent blood. When the state does this, Christians and Bible-believers have a duty to oppose the shedding of innocent blood and denounce it as an advocate for the innocent and oppressed.
Keith, I really hope you’ll address the question: Do you think Jesus and the early church were wrong for their non-violent response to deadly oppression for much of the first 300 years of the church’s existence? What do you think they should have done differently?
Comment by Kirkion on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Keith,
I’m glad that you pointed out the fundamental confusion in terms such as “redemptive violence” which is something that has never been advocated by anyone with even a passing familiarity with violence, or with what Biblical redemption entails. When this fallen world is redeemed, violence won’t be redeemed, it will cease.
To try and start an honest conversation on this topic, I wonder if we could liken violence to divorce, as something which God permits in cases of sin, which in this fallen world ARE INEVITABLE. However, seeking for a reason to divorce is a horrendous wrong, and something which God condemns.
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Kirkion…
To try and start an honest conversation on this topic, I wonder if we could liken violence to divorce, as something which God permits in cases of sin, which in this fallen world ARE INEVITABLE.
To try and start an honest conversation on this topic, I wonder if anyone on your side could present the passage where God says it’s okay for God’s followers – or a nation where God’s followers lived – to choose on their own to kill some “enemy,” much less to do so in such a way that sheds innocent blood. I’m well aware of the Biblical canon from Genesis to Revelation that commands us NOT to shed innocent blood and to love our enemy and to overcome evil with good, but I’m wholly unaware of any passage where God says, “Sometimes, it’s okay for my followers to kill their enemies, as well as shed innocent blood in the process…”
What is hard to swallow for some of us is this lacksadaisical and whimsical approach to ethics contrary to biblical teaching when it comes to something as serious as war, but when it comes to a topic not covered in the Bible and that is otherwise obviously moral and good (like two gay guys marrying), you insist that three or so passages must be taken literally (what you say is literal, anyway) and any who would dare disagree with you are not Christians.
There seems to be a rather random inconsistency in biblical exegesis from the Right especially on this topic. It’s as if the guardians of literalism suddenly become the guardians of extremely loose and aliteral interpretations, basing ethics on personal politics and fear, rather than Biblical principles.
Comment by Alex P on October 30, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Re your mention of Gandhi: the great peacenik is on the record as saying that “war may have to be resorted to as a necessary evil.”
Re Shane Claiborne: his thinking perfectly suits his appearance – shallow, childish. I gather he is accustomed to addressing younger crowds that could not fathom that a Christian tradition 2000 years old might have some merit. He gets lots of applause from people whose comprehension of the world and human nature are as immature as his own.
The young guy who cleans our pool looks a lot of Claiborne; he seems like a perfectly nice and polite fellow, but if he ever tried to discuss something serious, I’d probably burst out laughing.
I’m glad all young people don’t feel as he does about our national security. We can’t have policy dictated by geldings.
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Ad hom attacks only reflect badly on the children who make them, little Alex.
Address points, rather than engage in personal attacks. Petty, slanderous, unChristian, un-adult. Grow up.
Comment by Bob Brown on October 30, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Jesus did not advocate for Non-Resistance, he advocated for Non-Violent resistance. Matthew 5 gives us some very clear methods of Non-Violent, or transformative responses to violence – if the Roman oppressor asks you to carry his pack 1 mile, you should carry it two. If you are slapped as a slave, turn the other cheek so that you must be struck as an equal. If some one takes you to court to take away the second to last thing you own, give it to them, and give them the last thing you own as well.
In the same way, Paul didn’t advocate obedience to the Government – he advocated “submission”. If Paul would have been obedient, he wouldn’t have preached the Gospel, but when he was arrested for talking about Jesus (disobedience to the powers that God put in place), he accepted his punishment.
Comment by dover1952 on October 30, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Then again, not being one to mince words and always one to go right to the heart of the matter, Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are in love with violence and have a gnawing internal need to kill. I have observed it for many years. My favorite line is: “But it’s okay to kill guilty life.”
Do you hear that Fred? We get to kill guilty life!!!!! We got an outlet now!!!!
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 30, 2012 at 7:05 pm
I don’t think that is even remotely accurate, Dover. I grew up conservative. I still have many family and friends who are conservative evangelicals. They are, by and large, extremely peaceable people. I certainly was all of my evangelical upbringing. In fact, it was exactly because of the teachings of the conservative Southern Baptists of my upbringing that I grew up to be a peacemaker/pacifist-type.
I think you’d be better able to make your case if you were more moderate in your disagreement with those who are on “the other side.”
Comment by Gary on October 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Remind me not to get attacked by someone when Dan’s around – all he will do is yell “Citizen’s Arrest, Citizen’s Arrest!” or “let’s dialogue about this!” And he can claim that he is non violent in his response yet not passive because he did do something.
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 30, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Actually, the one time that someone was attacked when I was around, I was there putting myself between the attacker and the victim, giving her a chance to get away while I talked the attacker down from his violence.
So, Brother Gary, rather than engaging in easily-dismissed ad hom attacks which only diminish YOUR credibility rather than successfully slander me (and slander being contrary to biblical teaching – those who engage in it are not of the Kingdom of God, the Bible says clearly), why don’t you engage on the points actually being made?
Comment by Ben Welliver on November 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Liberals live in the realm of words, not reality. They think any situation can be “talked out.” Just as you can’t solve every problem with a gun, you can’t solve every problem with talk, but they can’t grasp that. Out in the real world, a lot of effeminate gab about “peaceful resolution” is no match for opening up a can of whip***.” You can’t BS a thug the way you can BS a college professor, especially since the professor makes his living propagating BS.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 3, 2012 at 2:44 pm
And again, in reality – in the real world – I and my crew of peacemakers/pacifists deal with violent (or potentially violent) situations regularly and we do so without guns or bombs.
So, setting aside the BS of fake arguments and ad hom attacks, what about dealing with the questions actually being raised?
Again, I am left to believe that you all have NO biblical argument to support your position because you all HAVE NO BIBLICAL ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR HUNCHES.
And that’s fine. I’m okay with talking about your fears and what to do, setting aside what the Bible says, but have the honesty to admit that your solutions are extrabiblical.
Comment by sdcougar on October 30, 2012 at 8:28 pm
I would especially highlight Dan’s #2 at the 12:50 mark. Just war Christians can be just as naive about war as pacifist Christians.
While I think that there are many things that Christians can do to be peacemakers, I also think we can be naive about how to go about it. e.g. Ghandi’s approach only worked because the UK was a Christian nation.
Regarding the role of the state versus the Christian’s role, many seem to have no grasp of the context of Romans ’13.’ http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/romans-13-in-context/
Christians are called to be the light of the world not the sword of the Lord.
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
Comment by sdcougar on October 30, 2012 at 8:29 pm
wow, don’t know why it posted that book cover?
Comment by dover1952 on October 30, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Dan. I am not here to make a case for anything, nor am I hear to change the minds of the IRD tribe—which I know is utterly impossible—and which they know is utterly impossible. I am also not here to be a troll by saying provocative sounding things (that I do not really believe or mean) to get a rise out of people. If you saw the end of the movie “Patton,” you heard the story about the slave that stood behind the conqueroring Roman general and whispered incessantly into his ear, “All glory is fleeting.” I am just here to whisper into the ears of the IRD that they have opposition that is just as determined and militant as they are, that they have gone over to the dark side of the faith, and that they are doomed to lose their battle in American culture and against the churches of Jesus Christ—like yours—that they so self-righteously despise. I just want them to know that an army of millions just like me are coming down the road after them.
Comment by Mark on October 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Keith, your provide great insights in your observations. It seems to me that when Jesus said “turn the other cheek” he was not suggesting that we do it for anyone but ourselves. If we leave our brother unprotected because of some distorted understanding of this teaching, and our brother gets maimed or killed as a result, are we not culpable?
Comment by Kirkion on October 31, 2012 at 12:45 pm
This is an interesting point, in that so many pacifists, like Claiborne, view things in terms of rights. They reason that if there is some vague natural right to self-defense that Christ calls us to lay down our rights for others. This views things in a simplistic scenario in which the only people involved are myself and my attacker. But what if violence was not a right, but a responsibility?
In real life, no man is an island, particularly one who has taken a covenant to protect his wife and children. Under the principle that your body belongs to your wife, I don’t think that a married man has the right to simply allow himself to be killed. I do believe that there are individual callings to pacifism in the Christian church, just like there are individual callings to celibacy. In fact I suspect that the two callings are immutably linked, because I do not see how a man could authentically carry out a pacifistic conviction and keep his covenant responsibilities to his wife, or his God-given obligations to his children. At the very least, I know that I could not.
I do think that we should recognize hopeless situations, and not engage in pointless or gratuitous violence, but any ideology which mandates an abdication of the responsibilities of people who live in community is not a workable option, in my opinion, for a Christian.
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 31, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Kirkion…
In real life, no man is an island, particularly one who has taken a covenant to protect his wife and children. Under the principle that your body belongs to your wife, I don’t think that a married man has the right to simply allow himself to be killed.
? How would the Christian pacifist placing his life at risk be any different than the Christian soldier putting his life at risk? Or are you saying that the Christian who WANTS to be a soldier does not have the right to do that?
Kirkion…
what if violence was not a right, but a responsibility?
What if non-violence was not a right, but a responsibility? That seems to be what the Bible, especially the NT and Christ our Lord, teaches us. Do you have any biblical reason to think that violence might be a responsibility, or this just your reasoning?
(Let me be clear: I have NO problem with reasoning through things. I highly encourage it!
It just seems odd that the religious right so regularly seems to demonize those who use their reasoning to reach support for marriage equity or a pro-choice position, but when it comes to a pro-war position, they abandon all biblical teachings and start trying to reason their way to some excuse to justify war-making…)
Kirkion…
any ideology which mandates an abdication of the responsibilities of people who live in community is not a workable option, in my opinion, for a Christian.
Agreed. It’s just leaving us with a question: IS embracing killing the enemy (including collateral killings) via war in ANY way considered a “responsibility” for Christians OR is it, as we peacemakers tend to think, an abdication of responsibility?
Do you have EVEN ONE Bible passage to support war-making as responsibility? Or is your entire argument just based on your own reasoning?
Again, I want to emphasize that using our fallible, human reasoning IS a good thing, I just wish you all would show as much grace for others when they do this as you appear to be asking in the war arena.
Since there really is not a single biblical command for us to engage in war, or for us to kill our enemies, or for us to shed innocent blood, while there are plentiful biblical commands to the contrary… since that is the case, I hope you can recognize how much of a leap of faith your asking peacemakers/pacifists to take in your opinions that they might be somehow Godly or moral in nature.
Comment by kirkion on October 31, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Dan,
I hope that you see that my viewpoint allows for pacifism as a specific Biblical calling. As such, I don’t need to disprove pacifism as a lifestyle, nor do I have any interest in doing so. To use your words, I don’t have to ask for a “leap of faith” from “peacemakers/pacifists.” I do have an interest in exploring the strictures of honor, learning how to use the power and influence that God has allowed me as an American, as appropriately as possible, recognizing the fallen nature of the world in which we live.
I want you to understand that from my perspective, you and I are having two different conversations. While I obviously disagree with the path of logic by which you reach your pacifistic conclusions, particularly as applied to my life, I think that there are valid biblical reasons for seeking to live a pacifistic lifestyle, wholly dedicated to preaching the gospel and withdrawn from the affairs of the world.
Unlike some of our other disagreements, I don’t think that you are advocating sin, here. It would be a violation of my conscience, and thus sin for me to strictly follow the rule you are proposing, but that is because I personally have made choices to bind myself to other people, with all the obligations and responsibilities that that entails. So I hope you understand that we aren’t really having the same conversation, and I’m most likely not going to respond to comments that are having a different kind of conversation for the rest of this thread (and most likely on other threads where the subject comes up).
God Bless
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 31, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Kirkion, I understand that you “allowed” as that a Christian might be called to pacifism. But you are suggesting another calling (perhaps the predominant calling?) for other Christians – to be prepared to be a warrior.
Given the emphases the religious right tends to try to force on others when it comes to biblical ethics, I’m just asking the very reasonable question: Where in the Bible do you find support for your opinions?
Or are you saying that you reach your conclusions mostly outside the Bible, based upon your reasoning, rather than specific biblical commands/teachings/truths?
For instance, why would your commitments to your family preclude you from being a pacifist, but not from being a warrior? There doesn’t seem to be any consistency there (much less any biblical support for the suggestion).
I’m engaging in your conversation, Kirkion, asking you how you reach your opinions. So, from MY perspective, we are not having two conversations. I’m asking you questions about YOUR opinions. Thus, one conversation.
I have also bound myself to other people – I and most of my anabaptist/quaker/other faith tribe have families, loved ones, responsibilities, obligations. Are you suggesting that those who have families ought not be either a solider or a pacifist?
I’m hoping you can answer these questions, as I’m interested.
Comment by dover1952 on October 31, 2012 at 1:46 am
Then again, you could consider this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30CQQc7U818&feature=related
Comment by Mark on October 31, 2012 at 9:43 am
I love Star Trek!
Of course, the Organians, because of their vastly superior power, were never in any serious danger of extinction, or even harm. They are a classic example of peace through strength.
One could even argue that they were not really non-violent since they cut the power to the spacecraft and disarmed both the Earthlings and the Klingons.
Pingback by Shane Claiborne’s Infantile Pacifism (Part 1) « Juicy Ecumenism on November 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm
[…] Read Part 2 here. Please continue to share your thoughts […]
Comment by J P Logan on November 3, 2012 at 10:07 am
Consider this quote from George Will, who looks (and thinks) like an adult:
“Just as the church has traditionally taught that war has moral limits, so it should now be teaching that there are moral limits to peace. Otherwise, any humiliation may be tolerated.”
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 3, 2012 at 11:24 am
I’m less impressed with what George Will thinks than I am with what Jesus thinks…
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them…
Never take revenge, instead let God’s anger do it.
If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Do not let evil defeat you; instead, conquer evil with good…
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing…
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
“He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly…
And, just to be clear, “him who judges justly” is a reference to God, not George Will.
Jesus apparently was quite prepared to tolerate humiliation, and to follow in Jesus’ steps is our call, not follow in George’s steps.
And, just to be clear: Jesus’ “humiliation” and meekness is an indication of strength, not weakness, and part of a concentrated effort to NOT ignore evil, but OVERCOME evil, with good.
But to be sure, following in those strong, brave steps takes some good measure of courage, grace and commitment to God.
Does anyone have a biblical reason to justify killing our enemies?
Comment by J P Logan on November 3, 2012 at 12:13 pm
See if you can fathom this: “turn the other cheek” does not mean “when you walk into the house and a guy is raping your wife, do nothing.”
Pacifism is, plainly, cowardice – cowardice passing itself off as a virtue. “I’m not a coward – I’m a Christian! If I see someone assaulting, raping, or killing someone I love, well, I’ll just stand there and go ‘Tsk, tsk, that’s not not nice.’ If my country gets invaded, I’ll greet the invaders with milk and cookies.”
Good thing you were never in the military. No one would ever say “He’s got my back” about you.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 3, 2012 at 2:03 pm
JP…
See if you can fathom this: “turn the other cheek” does not mean “when you walk into the house and a guy is raping your wife, do nothing.” Pacifism is, plainly, cowardice
How old are you, son? Are you so young as to be unable to understand words and your problem is plain ignorance, or are you deliberately twisting words to dishonestly slander people and engage in a rather primitive and childish ad hom attack?
See if you can fathom this: Peacemaking and pacifism do not mean PASSIVISM.
Read slowly and understand these words: Pacifists are NOT (NOT, NOT, NOT) in favor of “doing nothing.” So, those of you who raise this strawman (either from sheer ignorance or deliberate lying) are not arguing a point in the real world.
If you read my actual words, you can see where I have, when confronted with violent situations, stepped in myself between an attacker and his victim, and stopped the violence. So this strawman that we are somehow advocating “do nothing” is demonstrably false.
I and my comrades live in urban situations, we work with the troubled youth, the homeless and mentally ill (who, 99% of the time are completely peaceful) and regularly find ourselves in potentially violent situations and we are entirely capable of doing something to stop it and do on a regular basis.
This includes many of the youth and women of our church, in addition to the men. I’d be willing to bet that my 90 lb teenage daughter has more courage in her pinky than you do in your doubtlessly swelled head. Get over yourself, little man (or “woman” if “JP” is a woman). You are not speaking to cowards and the evidence supports that.
So, now that you all can see (presuming you bother to read and are capable of understanding) that these false reports are simply false and that you’re beating a strawman to death for no good reason, do you have anything to say about what I have ACTUALLY said and about my actual points I’ve raised?
Or is the entire basis of your argument going to remain in slander, false witness and childish ad hom attacks?
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm
You see, when I ask…
Does anyone have a biblical reason to justify killing our enemies?
…and you respond only with false witness and slander and ad hom attacks, it makes it appear that your answer is “NO. I do not have a single biblical reason to justify killing our enemies. We have no such command from God in the Bible to do this. I do it out of sheer fear for my cowardly little hide and that fills me with such self-loathing that instead of being honest and admitting it, I strike out with childish ad hom attacks.”
I shall assume that is your answer to my actual points and questions, lacking anything more concrete, from any of you all.
Lord have mercy.
Thanks.
Comment by Eric Lytle on November 3, 2012 at 5:01 pm
I think one reason people don’t entirely trust pacifists (Christian or non-) is that they sense that it’s mostly about posing, a “holier than thou” act. The pacifist contrasts herself with the Straw Man – the sadist who turns on the news and is giddy to hear reports of killing, especially by US soldiers. For the pacifist claiming to be Christian, the only two choices are
1) be like me and Jesus, a real pacifist, or
2) be someone who enjoys killing.
If those were the only two options, of course I’d choose 1. But those aren’t the only options. I can’t claim to speak for IRD, but I think that when they post an article like this, which disapproves of pacifism, they aren’t telling Christians to go out and stage a We Love War rally. The point of the article is, someone (Claiborne) is out there presenting his view as THE Christian view, and we don’t agree with him, so here’s our take. Those of us who are not pacifists aren’t getting up in public and saying, “Look at me! I’m such a Christian!” But Claiborne does that – often.
War and police violence are necessary evils in a fallen world. I don’t feel as a Christian that I am called to protest such things publicly – or to publicly support the military. Pursuing peace and harmony with people I actually come into contact with is another matter – that most definitely IS a biblical mandate. And clearly that is what is meant by “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Not the attention-seeking Shane Claibornes of the world, but the anonymous souls who try to defuse personal quarrels in their homes and work places.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 3, 2012 at 5:53 pm
While I don’t know Claiborne, I’m sure there are some folk out there on the Left who would make silly suggestions like, “All those who disagree with the more pacifistic take on Jesus are war-mongering militarists who WANT to kill the enemy and their babies!” Just like there are folk on the Right who make stupid suggestions like, “Those who support pacifism are cowards. They wouldn’t do anything to stop a rape.”
Both comments are equally silly and divorced from reality. On the Left, the rare times I have seen them, I have tended to see such comments coming from more immature individuals – teens and young adults who have just learned about peacemaking/pacifism. The difference is, to me, that on the Right, I see the comments MUCH more regularly and from folk old enough to know better.
I mean, seriously, I have tried to engage in conversations with several people here and each one, rather than addressing my actual points, have dropped back to childish ad hom attacks that are not based on reality, but are, in fact, slander and false witness. How old are these commenters? How old is Keith? I am pretty sure Keith is old enough to know better. I’m pretty sure that at least some of the IRD people are old enough to know better.
And yet, no one deals with their false witness, with their slander, and no one answers the questions being raised. How about it, Eric? You want to be the first to address the points being raised rather than engaging in childish argument tactics, avoiding the questions?
As to your suggestion that the “blessed are the peacemaker” type passages that dominate the NT, that they’re only dealing with interpersonal relationships and not, as Jesus and the early church were actually facing, governmental and cultural oppression and violence, is not a very believable opinion. Look at what was happening.
Do you think Jesus and his disciples were WRONG for not taking up arms against the oppressive Roman gov’t and the Herodians? Do you think the early church was wrong for not standing against their oppressors? If you think that they were ONLY speaking of interpersonal relationships and waging war to stop oppression is a Christian teaching, I’d ask
1. Where do you find support for that?
2. Why didn’t they do that?
Comment by kirkion on November 3, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Eric
I think that you have hit it on the head, pointing out the false dichotomy between the absolute pacifist and the warmongering sadist.
Both of these viewpoints are a denial of certain aspects of reality. Someone who longs for an opportunity to go to war, or to fight for their life is either psychologically disturbed, or (more likely) not sufficiently educated about violence. This view is a denial of the horror of violence.
Someone who claims that violence is never justified for anyone under any circumstances, is either a coward or not sufficiently educated about violence. This view is a denial that there are horrors than equal to or greater than engaging in violence. Just as an example, it would be difficult to portray the 100 million victims of communism as less horrific than war. (It has been observed that wars to overthrow communist governments would almost certainly have killed less people than the millions of their own citizens the communists have killed).
I think that it is important though, to do more than just reject that false dichotomy, because I believe that there are paths and principles between the universal pacifistic mandate of neo-Anabaptists and the madness of a Neitzschean superman. Those principles may be rarely articulated, but they are real.
For myself, I think that the key issue is viewing violence in terms of responsibility, of a burden laid upon us, rather than as a right which we can exercise under certain conditions.
Personally, I pray (and ever more frequently in recent years), that God would graciously allow me to live out my life without bringing along a situation where my responsibilities require me to engage in violence. But I recognize that such a thing is beyond my control, and if God brings such a situation, I hope to satisfy my obligations in an honorable fashion. Katsujin no ken and all that.
Comment by Fred Garvin on December 3, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Wow-dreadlocks! How edgy! How prophetic-if today were 1972.
Religion keeps coming up with “Wow-this is new! NOW we’ve gotten back to basics and we’re right!” and ends up looking pathetic and dated ten years later.
What a waste of time.
Comment by To hell with pacifism on December 9, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Dan, are you trying to brainwash people into being pacifists so that they can let their enemies walk over them? If so, shame on you.
In case you haven’t realized, pacifism doesn’t always work in this world. Whether you like it or not, sometimes you have to fight. Besides, I feel that pacifism’s for goody-goodies because they’re self-righteous hypocrites.
Comment by Gus Ravenwheel on December 10, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Yes, “to hell with pacifism,” that is exactly what I’m trying to do. Brainwash people so they let their enemies walk all over them. That is my goal, indeed, it is the goal of all pacifists. We’re secretly trying to help evil people rule the world and eat babies and kick puppies and whatnot. You’ve caught me…
Gee whiz.
As to the suggestion that “pacifism doesn’t always work in the real world,” you DO know, don’t you, that war-making doesn’t always works in the real world?
Is that your measure for what we should do? Only do those things that always work? If so, I hate to tell you, but you won’t be doing ANYTHING, and how helpful would that be?
With an anonymous name like “to hell with pacifism,” I have to assume you’re not a person interested in serious adult discussion about this, but should you ever care to discuss the topic rationally, I’ll be glad to meet you half way.
Peace,
Dan Trabue