Pacifism.

[catlover]

Can you folks,please, explain further about your belief of non-violence? Also, I would assume since violence is not an option you folks are not a supporter of nationalism. Can you explain that further as well?

 

[MrJim]

Can you folks,please, explain further about your belief of non-violence? Also, I would assume since violence is not an option you folks are not a supporter of nationalism. Can you explain that further as well?

First I will make clear that there are two distinctive peace positions.

Pacificism is the most common peace position worldwide. It is a position that does seek to use whatever nonviolent power is available to achieve its agenda. Through pacificism you'll find the protests, the marches, the hunger strikes etc.

Historically the anabaptists have held to what is commonly called "non-resistance"(NR). This comes from the "resist not evil" passage and has plenty of scriptural support. A terrific book is "War, Peace, and Non-Resistance" by Guy Hershberger. NR does not seek to wield power to force its agenda upon others, but rather to peacefully live amongst all men. It traditionally is not nationalistic, realizing that God appoints the power that is. Paul speaks of the legitimacy of Nero's rule in Romans 13, and the NR understands that even when a ruler is seemingly evil that ruler is still appointed by God and we submit to that ruler, even if it means death. (Understand that submission does not mean obedience).

So the difference between NR & Pacifism is great. An example I've used for years: If drafted an NR would go to the draft board, humbly submit to their authority and say "I cannot serve in your military~do with me what you must". A pacifist may do that also, but may also picket/protest the board's authority to draft or run off to Canada~and it would be accepted as legitimate pacifist actions. For a NR to not submit to the gov't would be not submitting to God. Again understand here the difference~submit means to place one's self under the authority of another. While I disobey the draft order, I submit willingly to the punishment of not doing so.

The submission and power aspects are the key differences between the pacifist and nonresistant. I have been and still hold to many non-resistant principles; I've never been pacifist.

There are Christians that do hold to genuine pacifist principles~it's better to let them explain.

 

[catlover]

First I will make clear that there are two distinctive peace positions.

Pacificism is the most common peace position worldwide. It is a position that does seek to use whatever nonviolent power is available to achieve its agenda. Through pacificism you'll find the protests, the marches, the hunger strikes etc.

Historically the anabaptists have held to what is commonly called "non-resistance"(NR). This comes from the "resist not evil" passage and has plenty of scriptural support. A terrific book is "War, Peace, and Non-Resistance" by Guy Hershberger. NR does not seek to wield power to force its agenda upon others, but rather to peacefully live amongst all men. It traditionally is not nationalistic, realizing that God appoints the power that is. Paul speaks of the legitimacy of Nero's rule in Romans 13, and the NR understands that even when a ruler is seemingly evil that ruler is still appointed by God and we submit to that ruler, even if it means death. (Understand that submission does not mean obedience).

So the difference between NR & Pacifism is great. An example I've used for years: If drafted an NR would go to the draft board, humbly submit to their authority and say "I cannot serve in your military~do with me what you must". A pacifist may do that also, but may also picket/protest the board's authority to draft or run off to Canada~and it would be accepted as legitimate pacifist actions. For a NR to not submit to the gov't would be not submitting to God. Again understand here the difference~submit means to place one's self under the authority of another. While I disobey the draft order, I submit willingly to the punishment of not doing so.

The submission and power aspects are the key differences between the pacifist and nonresistant. I have been and still hold to many non-resistant principles; I've never been pacifist.

There are Christians that do hold to genuine pacifist principles~it's better to let them explain.

Interesting. Thank you for explaining the difference between NR and pacifism.

 

[MrJim]

Interesting. Thank you for explaining the difference between NR and pacifism.

You're welcome~Liz should be around soon, and she'll can explain aspects of pacifism far better than I can, and she makes lots of good points too

 

[nzguy]

Ya I like that.. it is living amongst people using the message of Jesus unconditional love and combined with His truths given in a non-threatening way that respects people's dignity and power of choice.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Actually, I think Jim did a good job of explaining. However, there isn't always a clear line of demarcation between pacifism and nonresistance. The strict nonresistant position does not try to influence or be part of the state in any way, although there still is an expectation that a nonresistant witness will have some influence either on society or on individuals who will be attracted by a nonresistant witness.

John Howard Yoder leaned a bit more to the pacifist side than the nonresistant side. His book, Christian Witness to the State is a good introduction to a more moderate view. Biblically, to pray and petition for freedom of conscience seems to be encouraged. Few Anabaptists would take a position of nonresistance so strict as not to do that. OTOH, it is less common to find among Anabaptists a form of pacifism as activist as what you would associate with Ghandi.

Traditionally, Anabaptists not only would not be soldiers, but also would not be judges or police officers, lawyers, or any other type of government official because of the coercive aspects of government. While God has ordained the government to bear the sword, since Christians do not bear the sword, they do not participate in government. Many do not even vote. My Mennonite grandparents on my mother's side voted, but my grandparents on my father's side did not.

 

[catlover]

Actually, I think Jim did a good job of explaining. However, there isn't always a clear line of demarcation between pacifism and nonresistance. The strict nonresistant position does not try to influence or be part of the state in any way, although there still is an expectation that a nonresistant witness will have some influence either on society or on individuals who will be attracted by a nonresistant witness.

John Howard Yoder leaned a bit more to the pacifist side than the nonresistant side. His book, Christian Witness to the State is a good introduction to a more moderate view. Biblically, to pray and petition for freedom of conscience seems to be encouraged. Few Anabaptists would take a position of nonresistance so strict as not to do that. OTOH, it is less common to find among Anabaptists a form of pacifism as activist as what you would associate with Ghandi.

Traditionally, Anabaptists not only would not be soldiers, but also would not be judges or police officers, lawyers, or any other type of government official because of the coercive aspects of government. While God has ordained the government to bear the sword, since Christians do not bear the sword, they do not participate in government. Many do not even vote. My Mennonite grandparents on my mother's side voted, but my grandparents on my father's side did not.

Thank you for your candidness and explaining the idea of pacifism-social justice seems to be a theme with some Christian groups...I want more of that.

 

[Crazy Liz]

You're going to see pacifism-social justice more likely to be a theme with Quakers (also a group of denominations in this forum) than with the traditional Anabaptists. You will also find some anabaptist groups very interested in social justice. Tulc is part of JPUSA, which would definitely consider social justice an important aspect of their faith. I tend also to be more interested in social justice than in strict nonresistance. That might be why Jim thought I'd give you a different perspective than his. Definitely I would lean toward social justice along the lines of Yoder. Other modern churches involved in social justice, such as Sojourners, owe a lot of their philosophy to the Quakers who fought for abolition of slavery and for women's rights, as well as to later Quakers and Anabaptists in the social justice tradition, like Yoder.

 

[MrJim]

Actually, I think Jim did a good job of explaining. However, there isn't always a clear line of demarcation between pacifism and nonresistance. The strict nonresistant position does not try to influence or be part of the state in any way, although there still is an expectation that a nonresistant witness will have some influence either on society or on individuals who will be attracted by a nonresistant witness.

John Howard Yoder leaned a bit more to the pacifist side than the nonresistant side. His book, Christian Witness to the State is a good introduction to a more moderate view. Biblically, to pray and petition for freedom of conscience seems to be encouraged. Few Anabaptists would take a position of nonresistance so strict as not to do that. OTOH, it is less common to find among Anabaptists a form of pacifism as activist as what you would associate with Ghandi.

Traditionally, Anabaptists not only would not be soldiers, but also would not be judges or police officers, lawyers, or any other type of government official because of the coercive aspects of government. While God has ordained the government to bear the sword, since Christians do not bear the sword, they do not participate in government. Many do not even vote. My Mennonite grandparents on my mother's side voted, but my grandparents on my father's side did not.

I spend a lot of my forum time over at a conservative mennonite forum and even there you'll find a wide range of approaches on this topic. There are voters and nonvoters; folks that deal with nonresistance issues, particularly as it applies to defense of the families; there is a lot of flux in applications of the principles.

 

[Basil the Great]

I understand the position of pacifism in regards to international affairs. I can partially understand it in regards to refusing to defend oneself. However, it makes no sense to me whatsoever for an adult to refuse to defend one's own child or spouse. Would I be correct in assuming that most Mennonites, Quakers and Church of the Brethren would be willing to fight to protect the lives of their family members?

 

[WayneinMaine]

I understand the position of pacifism in regards to international affairs. I can partially understand it in regards to refusing to defend oneself. However, it makes no sense to me whatsoever for an adult to refuse to defend one's own child or spouse. Would I be correct in assuming that most Mennonites, Quakers and Church of the Brethren would be willing to fight to protect the lives of their family members?

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The most conservative ones would not. You will not find "defensive" weapons in Old Order Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite households.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']It is hotly debated in some circles, with the usual extreme scenarios offered as a challenge to the idea. It may well be that recognizing God's power and the fleeting nature of our brief sojourn at this end of eternity makes it possible to be resigned to God's sovereignty over the physical defense of our loved ones (who are, after all, His as well) -even though it doesn't make sense. [/FONT]

 

[Tommy Nine Fingers]

when is it not appropriate to fight for one's family?
there's christian doctrine that espouses peace, and there's 'christian' doctrine that has sought to be more righteous than the scripture, by taking things back to the black and white stance that claims that no violence is justifiable...
God condoned stonings, beatings, whippings, genocides, wars, and cullings in the past... why can he not handle seeing someone defending their family? i don't think he would have post traumatic stress disorder from the horrors of all his own doings...

 

[Tommy Nine Fingers]

sorry, but: "It may well be that recognizing God's power and the fleeting nature of our brief sojourn at this end of eternity makes it possible to be resigned to God's sovereignty over the physical defense of our loved ones (who are, after all, His as well)" seems like a fatalistic perspective, and it's not really the sort of perspective or belief that shows love for one's loved ones... one needs to maintain a sense of proportion...
non-violence, pacifism, non-resistance, weak, soft, vulnerable, unwise...

 

[Aesjn]

The wisdom of the world is foolishness, he who would save his life will loose it, they who live by the sword will die by it... etc.

Did Jesus say we were to be hard men, and "fight for what is ours"? No... he said if someone will take something from us give them even more. If you truly believe in god and the immortality of the soul nothing anyone can do to you is of any consequence at all.

He also told us to forgive our debtors, enemies and those who hate us. Basically, there is no room for "well, he is doing evil to me so I will do evil back to him."