As Christians, the discussion of war and pacifism is not a discussion of ends. We are not to choose are course of action based on what we think the possible or hypothetical ends of an action are (there are probably situations where you can do this, but I don’t believe this is one of them). Certainly if I was not a Christian, not some one who believed in the Word of God and the person of Jesus Christ who walked the earth, I would more then likely Primarily consider the ends to choose my course. This discussion though is amongst Christians.
We see numerous examples in the Bible where a choice was made based on means (as they saw God had called them to) rather then the ends that seemed likely. Daniel in the Lions den, Moses going to Pharaoh, Abraham venturing out, Stephen who was stoned, Jesus being crucified, and Paul going to prison. The most clear example probably is Rack, Shack and Benny (care of VeggieTales), when they refuse to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s God. The ends seemed quite obvious even to them: They’d be burned up in the furnace. But they knew clearly they needed to follow what God had clearly called them to regardless of the outcome; and we were all quite surprised at the outcome.
This is my point: If pacifism is what God clearly calls us to in His word, then we must follow it, regardless of how irrational it might be from our worldly (and even historical) perspective. If you are going to dialog with me on this topic as a Christian, we are going to need to come to a consensus on this point. This is an important point to deal with before we move on.
For example, you are not going to convince me that pacifism is not what Christians are supposed to do by logically arguing that war was the only possible option to defeat Hitler. A political argument that war was the only option to oust Saddam is not what we are focusing on. If you show me that war is a Biblical Christian response to Hitler and Saddam then I’ll be happy to agree with you.
Are we in agreement that this is not to be a discussion of ends? (we can have that conversation later if you want).
100% right on! As you say, refusing to obey God was also “the only way” Daniel had a prayer (pun intended) of surviving the lion’s den, but we see what the outcome of that story was. God does not always call us to do the seemingly logical thing, and we should base our decision on what God says, not on what our intuition says.
P.S. Mad props for the VeggieTales reference 🙂
the only problem is that he hasn’t begun to establish that God has called us to pacifism as a political doctrine. and to divorce the Real of politics from the theoretical of “means” or “intentions” is to be obtuse beyond recognition.
Your gonna have to break that one down for me a little more Stephen. Somethings I need defined: “the Real of politics”; why are “means” and “intentions” theoretical; and what exactly do you mean by “political doctrine?
Thanks for the heads-up via email. Here is what I mean:
There are no politics that are divorced from people. In the global context, there are no politics that are divorced from States. In other words, we cannot develop a political doctrine that is divorced from the real world of States and people.
I assume that there are no political doctrines that are divorced from real States and real people. I argue that firstly we must establish that God calls States not to use violence in any situation.
We must assume that pacifism is a workable political doctrine: in other words, can pacifism ensure that the people it purports to protect are not annihilated via violence? if it cannot, then it has no business in the State.
If there is a counter-example that suggests that it would be OK to use violence in order to protect people, OR that the State has a vested interest in not seeing its citizens annihilated and property rights violated OR if in a society someone in the State might decide that pacifism is morally attractive and thereby incurs the death of others OR if there is ever, ever a situation in which it is acceptable for the State to employ violence, and Hitler, Rwanda and Darfur are worthy of discussion, not extremes to be avoided, THEN pacifism is an unworkable political doctrine with no place in the State.
I argue that there are situations in which States may use violence and coercion towards each other. I argue that there is no biblical prohibition on States employing the sword. I argue that pacifism cannot ensure that the people, the vulnerable, it is supposed to protect in a State or in a foreign policy, will not be annihilated. I argue that pacifism is a fantastic idea insofar as men are angels and no coercion is ever necessary; they are not, it is. I argue that pacifism is an unworkable, un-Real political doctrine, and the 21st century’s democratization of violence, proliferation of dangerous weapons, ease of travel and communication, and breadth and depth of the hatred that humans possess towards one another, make pacifism not just unrealistic or unpractical, something I am sure you have heard, but downright dangerous and morally questionable.
Okay, wow, Stephen sure laid it out there.
I hope Stephen and others don’t mind but at least for a while, I’m not really going to address what he said.
There is one main reason, I don’t know nearly as much about politics. And second, like I said earlier, this is not a political argument. We can get into the politics at some point, but Stephen, all your political defenses (and you did a heck of a good job above) are not going to change my opinion one bit. Please understand I don’t mean that rudely, I simply mean that those things have nothing to do with why I am a pacifist or not.
Hope that’s okay, let me know if it’s not.
SR,
Yeah I completely agree with you (although I couldn’t have put it nearly so succinctly or eloquently), but I do think we’re talking about 2 different issues. The issue you addressed seems to be the political side – does it make sense for our nation to go to war as a political action? Your third paragraph is right on, I think Ariah needs to argue that war is not justified in any situation, but the rest seems like a different issue. You mention God’s desires, but then go on to talk about the morals of the state. It’s a good argument, but I don’t see how the two are connected.
Plus I’m with Ariah – I’m just a lowly computer science major. If we start talking deep politics my idiocy will be quickly revealed 🙂
I think what I was trying to say is that you cannot divorce pacifism as a purely “biblical” doctrine from real life politics and real life states. If you are going to confine pacifism to merely inter-personal conflict (like a thief and me), then yes, my criticism is misguided. However, once you start talking about inter-state conflict, you must think much more deeply about the principles of governance, confidence, representation and culpability.
To say that no political defense will suffice to dissuade you from your view that pacifism is legitimate I assume means that you are confining it to inter-personal, and not inter-state conflict?
so…
i agree with this statement: ends do not justify means.
some things i think that are worth considering (in no ways is this enough to reach a final conclusion, just things to keep in mind):
-God has ordained authority in regard to the church (Christ is the ultimate head, elders are the earthly leaders), family (man is the head), and state (political leaders are the heads)
-each body instituted by God has a different purpose
-God has ordained the gov’t to keep the peace-they punish wrongdoers (romans 13;4-For he [head of state] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.)
-to a certain degree (i’m not declaring the extent), the gov’t is ordained by God to exact justice
-we do not need to confuse the church’s role or way of doing things with the gov’t’s
-i’m not sure a gov’t that never used force would be doing it’s God-ordained job
-a Christian whose conscience is offended by working in a position that requires force shouldn’t join in
i don’t think i’ve spoken for or against pacifism; i’m hoping this comes across unbiased
i would also like to add this, i am bothered by pacifist groups protesting war, the gov’t is not the church, and i think a double standard may be in place when a war is protested but not police arresting a bankrobber or some such, besides, wouldn’t their energies be spent better elsewhere? oh well, just some thoughts
Stuart,
Thank you for your comments, they are well put and I hope I will address the things that you are asking. I’ll certainly get to the Romans 13 passage, but you’ll have to bear with me. Also, I hope to address your concerns about people protesting war as well, but that’ll come much later.
For now thanks for tuning in, and I hope you’ll subscribe, or at least keep checking back for my future post, that way we can keep the dialogue going. thanks.
It appears not much has been being added.
Here’s a question I have: How do pacifists believe a gov’t is supposed to fulfill its duties mentioned in 1 peter 2:14 of punishing those who do wrong and (of lesser interest to me, though still interesting) reward those who do what is right? The gov’t isn’t in the wrong when it does these things, is it?
This isn’t a “answer that one, punk.” It’s a “hey, I’m curious.”
Another thing that is in my head is this: can we really condemn a worldly gov’t for not meeting up to our moral standards? does that make sense?
anyway, just some thoughts, later for now
Thanks for the comment Stuart. I’ve been trying to deal with a bunch of spam comments recently and that’s taken up my time over the weekend. I’ll get into the 1st Peter discussion soon, but I think we’ll get into some of it in the Romans 13 passage I started talking about as well.
Good job.