So throughout today, Nick and Brian have had an interesting discussion on Pacifism and violence. I think we can all agree that all of humanity and creation are God’s property. So really, no one has the right to kill or harm anyone; that’s reserved for the Triune Creator.
I think people’s problems with pacifism is that people select and choose their own particular hypothetical situations, and start their case against it from there (What about Hitler? What about if someone attacks your spouse? etc.) I personally do not think the Bible rejects self-defense. It presupposes it.
However, by most accounts, Christianity’s earliest witnesses were for nonviolence. I could go through the quotes and citations, but the point is, even in Revelation, Christians are not fighting back against their persecutors. They accept their suffering about part of their life on the Cross with Christ Jesus. The Cross is how God governs the world, through suffering and freedom, and overcoming of sin. God’s suffering is what orthodox Christians call God’s wrath, or justice.
Nick made a poignant point that caused me to think (albeit I disagree), that if the Christian martyrs did not rescue the women and children from the lions’ den or fire or whatever else persecution they suffered, the early Christians sinned by omission. I do not think it is that black and white morally. We have to consider the power relationships between the Romans and the first Christians. That cannot be easily dismissed. It is like saying that because some enslaved Africans chose not to rebel against their American enslavers, they are somehow guilty of a sin. I really do not think that is the case in either instance.
This gets me to my point and my frustration as a student of early Christianity. On one side (the emergent/emerging Christian side), we have a group of believers who say that historically (and I hate to generalize but lately reading the “leadership’s” positions and attitudes, I can’t help it) traditional Christianity has gotten it all wrong. We should accept early Christian practice, yes, but reject the doctrine, or at least, reinterpret traditional dogma (the Trinity/the deity of Christ/the atonement). But on the other side (perhaps more theologically orthodox doctrinally), says we should embrace the doctrine but reject one of the consistent practices that the church was actually united on (i.e., non-violence). My frustration is that when it comes to early Christian studies, we think we are either intellectually superior to the Patristics and Matristics of the faith or that we have somehow morally progressed above them. We are so confident in our own human action that we can make things right (taking events into our own hands) rather than waiting on the Lord, living lives of peaceableness. I personally think both sides get it wrong. We should not separate early Christian dogma from early Christian praxis. They go hand in hand.
I have always found military participation by Christians to be one of those head scratchers your last paragraph alludes toward. It was a broad consensus that this was unacceptable yet today we act as if they are idealistic fools. We would never say that about their formulations of the Trinity and Christology though!
“It was a broad consensus that this was unacceptable yet today we act as if they are idealistic fools. We would never say that about their formulations of the Trinity and Christology though!”
Exactly, Brian, my point exactly. As for Christian soldiers, I think in the US, we do not literally have to worship demons and false gods like the soldiers of the Roman empire did back then. I say that we show all of our soldiers love, just as Jesus loved and healed the centurion’s servant and show appreciation for our veterans. We can do that without having to resort to nationalism.
Regarding the early Christians not rescuing their women… It is not as if they were given the choice. They couldn’t have stopped the Romans from killing anyone. The fact that they prayed and were willing to live their lives transcending that fear means that even while killing the body, Rome had no power over them.
And why is it that people always argue from the margins of issues? “Abortion is a gift of God because girls get raped by their fathers, resulting in pregnancies that will kill them”. Or “Violence is the bee’s knees because when Hitler comes to my door and threatens my wife, I will be ready!” I bet someone would have said the same thing about civil rights, aparthied, or the British empire in India if non-violence would not have been tried.
And what the heck are you really going to do if someone with a gun threatens your wife? You gonna charge ‘em? Now she’s a widow. Good job. Or if you are in Texas, “hold on, let me get my gun out of the drawer, put the bullets in… ok, now threaten my wife again, I dare you!”
@Chad,
“Regarding the early Christians not rescuing their women… It is not as if they were given the choice. They couldn’t have stopped the Romans from killing anyone. The fact that they prayed and were willing to live their lives transcending that fear means that even while killing the body, Rome had no power over them. ”
My point exactly, once again. The early Christians prayed, trusting God’s actions first, and then human action. It is about putting God first, then us second.
I will take it a step further. Those that could have fought back instead chose to die with their loved ones, becoming a spectacle for all to see, in effect becoming so much like Jesus that their lives spoke louder than any mob could have against the injustice that was going on.
Yessir! Their desire to witness without having the political powers that be behind them (humanity’s approval) was the driving force behind their faithfulness to Christ and their nonviolence.
you’re starting to sound like an Anglican. welcome.
Me? Anglican? Yikes! I guess I am becoming more like you, and you like me. Welcome to the AAR!
Anglicans don’t have the patent on awesome! lol
You guys are raising some interesting issues here. I may not agree completely (as an Anabaptist who holds to nonviolence), but I love the open dialogue! Keep conversing, ‘wrestling’, and seeking the way of the cross!
Feel free to comment, Kurt! We would love your input.