Are we as Christians supposed to be pascifists?

[d0c markus]

Are we as Christians supposed to be pascifists?

Matthew 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I have heard it answered as yes and/or no . With the "no we are not to be pascifistic" answer i cannot seem to reconcile it with this verse. It says "do not resist the one who is evil" and uses the phrase "if anyone"

Even Jesus when he was going to be murdered said not 1 word in protest. Is it truley following the example of the Lord when we stand up and fight back?

One guy tried to reconcile it saying well Jesus corrected and rebuked people, sometimes firmly... Yes he did but its different than fighting back when someone comes against you.

What do you guys think? My flesh doesnt like this ideal very much, is my fighting against this ideal me fighting the very will and Lordship of God?

:o

 

[TwinCrier]

You cannot equate a slap with a rape or violent murder or abuse. My favorite saying is: Turn the other cheek, but be prepared to duck.
Pacifism usually refers to the individual, but many Christian pacifists oppose wars and the death penalty, which is the authority of the government.
http://av1611.faithweb.com/custom4.html

 

[d0c markus]

You cannot equate a slap with a rape or violent murder or abuse. My favorite saying is: Turn the other cheek, but be prepared to duck.
Pacifism usually refers to the individual, but many Christian pacifists oppose wars and the death penalty, which is the authority of the government.
[url="http://av1611.faithweb.com/custom4.html"]http://av1611.faithweb.com/custom4.html[/url]

But someone will say, "What about Matthew 5:38-39? 'Ye have heard that It was said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.'" No, there is no inconsistency here, either. This advice was never given to the nation, that we should surrender to China and leave the world in slavery. It was given only to individuals --- and to particular individuals, at that. Jesus was preaching to bring His truths before all who had the qualities to respond to Him and would become His disciples: these would be that first generation of Christians whose responsibility above all else was to spread His word, without being distracted by petty quarrels with other people.

Uh, an army/nation is made up of a lot of Individuals. So he states basically The Sermon on the Mount is void, that the message was only for first gen christians? Whats our goal "above all else" as christians now? has it changed - were no longer to spread the word?? News to me.

(Jesus said...) I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Mt 5.39


When you can "duck" that is evade the use of offensive force, when you can do that no more what then?

God's use of the military and secular gov't's to carry out his will is well documented. Peter was told to put away his sword - that those who fight by the sword died by it. Paul protected himself with words when he was being attacked by a mob in Acts not force. The guy who wrote the article would contend that Paul violated the words of Christ if we are to take Matt 5:39 universally. The context of that verse is something physical is it not.

the author of the article points out that:

In John 2:13-16, the Beloved Disciple reports that the first act of Jesus Christ's ministry in the city of Jerusalem was to make a whip of ropes and flog the money­changers out of the court of the Temple. Does this look like nonresistance, cringing submission to the triumph of evil? Indeed not!

Lets look at the verse.
JN 2:13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

Firstly, it doesnt say that Jesus whipped anybody. If anything its reasonable to conclude that he whipped the animals to make them move. I bet i can scream in a cows face all day and not make him move. One crack on the butt and he is goin somewhere. If i start chasing your animals somewhere are you going to go after your animals or try to stop a guy with a whip?

Secondly, isnt it against roman law to flog someone without a trial? wouldnt that make Jesus a sinner?

Third, Jesus never tolerated sin - he saw fit to kick it out of His Father's house. We are told to do likewise with the unrepentant Christian (its called church discipline and can be found in 1 cor 5:1ff)

I would contend that the example we get from Jesus across the new testament is that he was very vocal about rebuking and correcting - but he was a total pacifist when it came to physical conflict. Not to mention that until the Father was ready no one could come against him physically - for the people would rise up. Now that he is risen and sitting at the right hand of the Father, he is making the sinners of this world his footstool and will lay down his holy wrath.

Vengeance is his after all...


(For an article on the war viewpoint tell me what you think of this - http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/iraqWarQuestion.htm

BTW - im not really discussing avoiding war, just kinda standing up for yourself when someone comes against you as an individual. That should keep the discussion focused.)

 

[bleechers]

We need to be careful when we quote the Lord. Not everything He says is a direct command to the church. Even His commands to His disciples changed:

Luke 22
35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

A nation is indeed made up of individuals, but we do not necessarily go to wars for individual reasons. The same can said of the police. They wield the sword in order to protect a city, a house, a person. In a similar manner, an army can wield the sword to protect a city, a house, a person.

We are never to seek personal vengeance and the gospel is never to be spread by the sword, but that does make the use of the sword unscriptural. If we are being persecuted for the faith, then no, we are to be like Christ and like Paul. If an army seeks to enslave, rape, plunder, etc. then our defense is not our own, it is for the sake of the weak.

After all, the Lord will return with an army to destroy His enemies. Now, just as the gospels do not necessarily pertain to us, neither does all the Revelation. The church exists between the two. So, just as I shouldn't got to the Revelation and teach that we should create an army of saints to destroy the forces of evil, neither should we go to the gospels and take all of the commands of Christ and apply them to the church.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think a really good case can be made for Christian pacifism through Jesus' words and the actions of the early church in the face of persecution.

I currently am not a pacifist but I think it is an issue that gets shoved under the rug quite often in Christian circles. There are many ways we could logically justify war, but I don't know if that is how a Christ-like approach should be. I'm just thinking aloud.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Finally, a question for the Anabaptists and Quakers! Yet, so far, it looks like only Baptists are posting.

First of all, since this forum includes both Anabaptists and Quakers, I think it would be most helpful to distinguish between pacifism and nonresistance. These are 2 different approaches to violence and the use of force. The Quakers have traditionally been pacifists, and the Anabaptists have traditionally been nonresistant. There is some overlap, but basicqally these are two distinct positions.

Nonresistantce respects the power of the state to use the sword but holds that Christians are called not to participate in these state functions. Nonresistance does not apply only to the use of violence, but to other forms of forceful coercion, as well. So traditionally, Mennonites would not act as magistrates.

This teaching is taken largely from Matthew 5 (which, as Bleechers has already pointed out, most dispensationalists do not think is meant for us to obey) The key verses are:

[bible]matthew 5:25-26[/bible]

[bible]matthew 5:38-48[/bible]

As you can see, this principle is applied to lawsuits and to other forms of coercion (going the second mile), and not only to the use of violence. The Anabaptits taught that Christians were to follow Jesus and not resist the state's coercion, but not participate in it, either.

The coercive power of the sword is given to governments (Romans 13) but it is not for Christians to use.

The pacifist position of the Quakers holds that Christians have an affirmative duty to work for peace, including both nonviolent resistance to governmental wrongs and political action toward the ends of peace. The Sermon on the Mount is again one of the basic texts for Christian life.

I think (JMHO) that the differences between these positions partly has historical reasons based on the different political settings in which these two movements had their origins and developed their doctrines. The Anabaptist movement arose during the Reformation in Europe, when the German princes were warring with each other, but each was coercing his subjects to accept the prince's religion. All of them were persecuting the Anabaptists, and executed most of their first leaders by the cruelest tortures. Magistrate was an office that had some characteristics of a police detective and some of a judge, but the magistrate was still under the appointment and authority of the prince. It was about the highest office a commoner could occupy in that society, so the early Anabaptists discussed whether a Christian could be a magistrate or a soldier, and concluded a Christian could not.

The Friends arose about 100 years later in England, at a time and place with greater religious tolerance and greater political freedom for most people. The idea that political power could be exercised for good was not as inconceivable at this time as it had been in the Germanic countries of Europe a century earlier.

While the Anabaptists have always cursed Constantine for uniting church and state, and thus corrupting the church, I think this view was influenced greatly by the political and religious consellation of their time. The Quakers have always participated in politics, and therefore, they interprested these same scriptures in a pacifist way.

 

[d0c markus]

After all, the Lord will return with an army to destroy His enemies. Now, just as the gospels do not necessarily pertain to us, neither does all the Revelation. The church exists between the two. So, just as I shouldn't got to the Revelation and teach that we should create an army of saints to destroy the forces of evil, neither should we go to the gospels and take all of the commands of Christ and apply them to the church.

I agree we have no cause to raise up an army to slaughter evil, God says he'll take care of that, I however dont think there are any grounds to reject these words of Christ. Who decides they arent valid any more? One of the philosophies I hold to, if it was good enough for the first generation church, then its good enough for me.

Forgive me for saying but maybe this rejection of parts of the Gospel concerning the commands of Christ given to the Church is why the body of believers is so weak today.

I think a really good case can be made for Christian pacifism through Jesus' words and the actions of the early church in the face of persecution.

I currently am not a pacifist but I think it is an issue that gets shoved under the rug quite often in Christian circles. There are many ways we could logically justify war, but I don't know if that is how a Christ-like approach should be. I'm just thinking aloud.

I am starting to agree with you.

Nonresistantce respects the power of the state to use the sword but holds that Christians are called not to participate in these state functions. Nonresistance does not apply only to the use of violence, but to other forms of forceful coercion, as well. So traditionally, Mennonites would not act as magistrates.

Im not one to accept things lightly, espescially when it comes to matters of faith. But the arguments against this in my opinion are weak and call for rejecting the words of Christ.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Im not one to accept things lightly, espescially when it comes to matters of faith. But the arguments against this in my opinion are weak and call for rejecting the words of Christ.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

My first post wasn't really intended to be an argument, but an introduction to two different Christian positions on this question, from the POV of Anabaptists and the POV of Quakers.

When I see paintings of St. George or Joan of Arc, I experience a lot of cognitive disonance at the whole idea of a warrior saint. Yet I can understand how Bonhoeffer, a pacifist at heart, came to be an assassin.

I guess what I'm trying to process is how these same scriptures have been applied differently in different historical settings. Could it be there is not one single correct interpretation of these scriptures?

 

[bleechers]

Who decides they arent valid any more?

Who "decided" we shouldn't slaughter sheep any more?

Hey, I support pacifists and nonresisters. I'm the champion of liberty in the NT in terms of personal convictions where the scriptures are silent. What I am against is laying a bondage on anyone. That is, just as I wouldn't require a pacifist to fight, I don't think they should interfere with the conviction of a Christian to join the Police Force.

Liberty all around!

 

[d0c markus]

I guess what I'm trying to process is how these same scriptures have been applied differently in different historical settings. Could it be there is not one single correct interpretation of these scriptures?

You pointed out a fact about non-involvement. I was stating how i dont see anything to contradict it.

And no, truth is absoloute. Relativism is garbage.

 

[d0c markus]

Who "decided" we shouldn't slaughter sheep any more?

Hey, I support pacifists and nonresisters. I'm the champion of liberty in the NT in terms of personal convictions where the scriptures are silent. What I am against is laying a bondage on anyone. That is, just as I wouldn't require a pacifist to fight, I don't think they should interfere with the conviction of a Christian to join the Police Force.

Liberty all around!

Your talking to someone who is heavily biased by the police field. I majored in criminal justice, went through the police academy, became a volunteer cop, all the while waiting for my 21st birthday to come up so that i can become a full time officer.

We dont slaughter sheep anymore? I thought you could get lamb at most grocery stores.

And I agree - to teach his own. Its no reason not to talk about it though.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hey, I support pacifists and nonresisters. I'm the champion of liberty in the NT in terms of personal convictions where the scriptures are silent. What I am against is laying a bondage on anyone. That is, just as I wouldn't require a pacifist to fight, I don't think they should interfere with the conviction of a Christian to join the Police Force.

Liberty all around!

I don't think there have been any pacifist here that have suggested that pacifism is a command for this dispensation that must be followed by all Christians or else they are secular compromisers.

 

[bleechers]

I don't think there have been any pacifist here that have suggested that pacifism is a command for this dispensation that must be followed by all Christians or else they are secular compromisers.

I realize you're kidding... but there was a "should not" kinda post:

CrazyLiz kindly supplied the following explanation of some pacifist/nonresisters views:

The Anabaptits taught that Christians were to follow Jesus and not resist the state's coercion, but not participate in it, either.

The coercive power of the sword is given to governments (Romans 13) but it is not for Christians to use.

Both state that "Christians" are to NOT DO something. All I was saying is that I believe it is a matter of personal conscience... so I would not say (as the definitions suggest) Christians "SHOULD" do one or the other.

That's all... honestly

 

[Gold Dragon]

I realize you're kidding... but there was a "should not" kinda post:

CrazyLiz kindly supplied the following explanation of some pacifist/nonresisters views:



Both state that "Christians" are to NOT DO something. All I was saying is that I believe it is a matter of personal conscience... so I would not say (as the definitions suggest) Christians "SHOULD" do one or the other.

That's all... honestly

Anabaptists and Quakers believe that scripture tells all Christians to be pacifists/nonresisters. I'm sure they understand that other Christians don't interpret scripture that way.

But I think that it is a good question to ask. Is pacifism something that all Christians should consider, or at least a more pacifistic outlook than we have historically held? I don't have the answer to this question but I think it is something that is definitely worth considering, in light of our current war situations. I was and am in favour of the Iraq war, BTW but I think it is useful to reflect on scripture and try to be more Christ-like in this way. Not to judge the behaviour of other Christians.

 

[bleechers]

Anabaptists and Quakers believe that scripture tells all Christians to be pacifists/nonresisters. I'm sure they understand that other Christians don't interpret scripture that way.

Hense the difference I noted.

Recognizing that not everyone agrees with them does not change that they believe that all SHOULD BE pacifists. I am just stating that my position is different. I believe it is purely a matter of conscience. No "SHOULD" or "SHOULD NOT".

As for reviewing the doctrine... I have no problem with that.

 

[Crazy Liz]

And no, truth is absoloute. Relativism is garbage.

That's a good assumption to stick with as long as you can.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I don't think there have been any pacifist here that have suggested that pacifism is a command for this dispensation that must be followed by all Christians or else they are secular compromisers.

Probably because Christian pacifists aren't dispensationalists.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Anabaptists and Quakers believe that scripture tells all Christians to be pacifists/nonresisters. I'm sure they understand that other Christians don't interpret scripture that way.

Yes. And Quakers would agre with you about individual conscience. Anabaptists are much more group-oriented. This is a difference Baptists usually don't understand. But it would be a tangent to this thread to discuss it further here.

But I think that it is a good question to ask. Is pacifism something that all Christians should consider, or at least a more pacifistic outlook than we have historically held? I don't have the answer to this question but I think it is something that is definitely worth considering, in light of our current war situations.

Yes, I agree. And, as you can see, I'm trying to understand how to assimilate other views, too.

I was and am in favour of the Iraq war, BTW but I think it is useful to reflect on scripture and try to be more Christ-like in this way. Not to judge the behaviour of other Christians.

Are you a just war theorist? I guess discussing just war theory WRT Iraq would also take this thread on a tangent, although it would be more closely related to the subject matter of the OP.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Hense the difference I noted.

Recognizing that not everyone agrees with them does not change that they believe that all SHOULD BE pacifists. I am just stating that my position is different. I believe it is purely a matter of conscience. No "SHOULD" or "SHOULD NOT".

As for reviewing the doctrine... I have no problem with that.

Yes, I got that distinction, hence the reference to individual conscience vs. a group orientation, which still doesn't completely deal with the above objection. The fact that Anabaptists tend to see conscience as a group function more than Baptists, who view it entirely as individual, still does not resolve the question as to whether ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD adopt one stance or another, which Bleechers caught, but GD and DM seem to have missed.

 

[ZiSunka]

Christianity is supposed to be a radical way of living, completely different from the way non-believers live. Non-believers resort to physical violence when threatened or hurt, but Jesus told us NOT to retaliate, in fact, not to resist evil acts against us at all! Non-believers don't know God, so they go out and try to make things go their way, resorting to violence if necessary. But Christians know the Living God always will do what's best for them, and they don't have to force their way on anyone. Non-believers hate their enemies, but Christ said we are to LOVE our enemies, and I think at the very least, loving them means NOT committing violence against them, don't you?