Pacifism

[bach90]

I've been thinking of an issue lately. Can a confessional Lutheran be a pacifist? I don't deny that the state has the right, even the duty, to provide for the physical safety of its' citizens and I don't deny that the state has recourse to deadly force in protecting innocent lives. However in terms of current US involvement in foreign wars I simply cannot in my conscience support any of them (Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya). I'd like to hear some feedback on this issue.

 

[Studeclunker]

I don't know that feeling one's country is involved in a stupid waste is passivisim. I too wish our government would quit attempting to be the world's police-force and mind our own business more.

The question is; how far does one take that? Do we allow foreign countries to slaughter Americans abroad? Do we allow them to kidnap and hold for ransom our citizens just because they are close to the border and convenient for snatching? Do we allow other countries to sieze our warships, merchant vessels, private boats and planes and do nothing? Do we allow terrorists, anarchists, and zelots to harrass our population and destroy property in our country at will?

How far do we go down that road before we kick a little bully's kiester to where he richly deserves to be?

Yet, as a Christian we are called to, 'turn the other cheek,' are we not? One has to ask how far that admonition goes? Are we proscribed from defending ourselves at all?

 

[Luther073082]

I've been thinking of an issue lately. Can a confessional Lutheran be a pacifist? I don't deny that the state has the right, even the duty, to provide for the physical safety of its' citizens and I don't deny that the state has recourse to deadly force in protecting innocent lives. However in terms of current US involvement in foreign wars I simply cannot in my conscience support any of them (Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya). I'd like to hear some feedback on this issue.

I can find nothing in scripture, the Lutheran confessions, or church tradition which makes being a complete pacifist counter to the Christian faith, however complete pacifism is also not required as you have pointed out.

Personally I find complete pacifism to be nieve though. In this world might makes right, thats not a popular thing to say, but no less true. And because of that there must be a stabilzing force to allow that we and the rest of the world can live our lives peacefully without the world decending into chaos.

Throughout history there was always a stabilizing force in the world or there was chaos. Right now we are this world's stabilizing force.

If America ceases to act as a stabilizing force in the world tomorrow, North Korea invades South Korea, China invades Taiwan. Over time Japan may come under a Chinese/Korean threat, Piracy would increase at least 4 fold. (And I think the world would be lucky if it increased only 4 fold). Israel is again attacked by a combined Arab threat from the area.

The EU because if its lack of clear leadership and the UN because it has no military force of its own would be impotent and unable to do anything to stem the increasing destability and chaos.

 

[Studeclunker]

Personally I find complete pacifism to be nieve though. In this world might makes right, thats not a popular thing to say, but no less true. And because of that there must be a stabilzing force to allow that we and the rest of the world can live our lives peacefully without the world decending into chaos.

Throughout history there was always a stabilizing force in the world or there was chaos. Right now we are this world's stabilizing force.

If America ceases to act as a stabilizing force in the world tomorrow, North Korea invades South Korea, China invades Taiwan. Over time Japan may come under a Chinese/Korean threat, Piracy would increase at least 4 fold. (And I think the world would be lucky if it increased only 4 fold). Israel is again attacked by a combined Arab threat from the area.

The EU because if its lack of clear leadership and the UN because it has no military force of its own would be impotent and unable to do anything to stem the increasing destability and chaos.

I agree with more of this than I disagree with. However, we are facing a serious problem in this country of dealing with wholesale bankruptcy of the government.

We have become overburdened with the demands of keeping the world on an even keel. The trouble with this is that the American economy cannot support the entire world. I believe it is naivete' in the extreme to think the U.S. can keep peace all over the world and also solve the economic and social problems extent. We simply don't have the resources to do so. Also, since we have exported all of our industry (to escape the ecological and labour costs at home), how are we to employ our own people? Are we to become a huge Police force that simply lives to keep the rest of the world in line? I don't believe that can be practically supported nor is it Biblically sound.

No, we cannot force our will all over the world. There simply isn't enough in the U.S. Treasury to do so. If we continue on this path of policing the world, we will find ourselves as bankrupt as the Russians. Let the E.U. take care of the Middle East. If they want us to protect their oil supplies, then the E.U. can re-imburse us for it, or do the job themselves. All the same, I think we need to be much more heavy-handed than we have been. Either we are going to do the job, or we are not. There is no middle ground with the Muslims. It has never been possible to live peaceably with those people and it never will be.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just an observation on my part that your post evolved from a discussion of the economic burden of peacekeeping to one of the U.S. versus Muslims.

I don't think that is a proper distinction. It leaves the impression that you think the U.S. is Christian, or at least non-Muslim. There is nothing sacrosanct about the U.S. Not that I'm looking for the turmoil of a decaying nation, but there is no promise that the U.S. will last forever. Further, not all Muslims are violent. Islam is based on principles that promote war - but just as there are liberal Christians who wobble on basic Christian principles, there are liberal Muslims who do the same.

I'm involved with the LCMS mission to Muslims (POBLO). Along with witnessing to Muslims, there is another side to the mission that is trying to belay the fears many Americans have about Muslims. Like everything else, it's important to know the person and not clothe them in stereotypes.

With that said, I agree that no one nation can take on the role of policeman to the world. I'll probably be tarred and feathered for saying this, but that is a definite distinction in the Bush foreign policy vs. Obama's. Bush had an ideals-based policy that thinks the whole world wants to be like the U.S. and we just have to liberate them. Obama has a more pragmatic priority-based policy. For myself, I hold a hybrid of those two views.

 

[Luther073082]

I agree with more of this than I disagree with. However, we are facing a serious problem in this country of dealing with wholesale bankruptcy of the government.

We have become overburdened with the demands of keeping the world on an even keel. The trouble with this is that the American economy cannot support the entire world. I believe it is naivete' in the extreme to think the U.S. can keep peace all over the world and also solve the economic and social problems extent. We simply don't have the resources to do so. Also, since we have exported all of our industry (to escape the ecological and labour costs at home), how are we to employ our own people? Are we to become a huge Police force that simply lives to keep the rest of the world in line? I don't believe that can be practically supported nor is it Biblically sound.

No, we cannot force our will all over the world. There simply isn't enough in the U.S. Treasury to do so. If we continue on this path of policing the world, we will find ourselves as bankrupt as the Russians.

Actually I agree for the most part. We can't afford to provide a saftey net for everyone in the US and also stabilize the world. And most superpowers lost their power because they lost the money to do it.

I think we could stabilize the world if we concentrated our efforts solely on that. But we of course don't want to do that. Why would we want to? Its a burden that most people would rather push off on soemone else.

Let the E.U. take care of the Middle East. If they want us to protect their oil supplies, then the E.U. can re-imburse us for it, or do the job themselves. All the same, I think we need to be much more heavy-handed than we have been. Either we are going to do the job, or we are not. There is no middle ground with the Muslims. It has never been possible to live peaceably with those people and it never will be.

I disagree with the blanket assumption. Turkey is mostly Muslim and has proven a reliable ally. But thats not the image that the media gives us of the Islamic faith.

It honestly depends on which ones you are dealing with. Just like Christians or any group of people, some are more prone to violence then others.

I mean on one level we do need to and be willing to acknowledge that there is a group of Muslims out there that really have it out for us. Thats not in question. But at the same time we can't paint them all with the same brush.