Five Questions Your Pacifist Friends Are Tired of Answering

This is a great article. I've been thinking about non-violence for a few months now and these are questions that I've asked myself or been asked by others that I haven't been able to really answer. Thanks for the insight

Clear and with passion, Fitz. If I have to be in a maleable place of worldview transition, I'm glad thoughtful folk like you are influencing me.

AMEN

This is my first comment on the Burnside Writers Collective. And although my intentions are to keep it short and sweet, I can guarantee you that I will manage to turn into a short essay of some sort. Keeping it brief has never been one of my strengths.

It is unfortunate that in so many of our churches we are raised up and taught to pay such blind allegiance to the American government. Once upon a time, I was the one making anti-pacifist arguments such as these. In high school, I argued with a college student that I wouldn't attend the University of Wisconsin - Madison based on the grounds that it was too "liberal." Fortunately, by the grace of God really, I found myself at Creighton University in Omaha, NE. In my four years there I was challenged consistently by my professors and my peers. I studied theology in ways I had never imagined before, and I found myself completely captivated by philosophy.

Like Jonathan, my faith didn't stand a chance against my college education, and I was forced to make hard decisions. More quickly than I was really capable of handling, my faith was turned completely upside down...and then some. But my initial and all to penetrating of a reaction was that of guilt. Deep, gut-wrenching guilt sometimes. I felt like a traitor to the church and the family I was raised in. So much so that when I went home for breaks I was too afraid to wear a tank top picturing a rose coming out of a gun barrel that said, "peace please."

I spent most of my college career wondering if I was "screwed up," feeling as though I had crept over to the dark side. But I didn't give up. I was in search of truth. My gut told me that I should keep studying, keep questioning, keep doubting, and keep discovering - that I shouldn't retreat back to my Christian island.

I could list strews of examples of how God prepared me for the complete overhaul of my faith as I knew it, but I'll jump ahead to the gut of it all. I was feeling alone, hoping I wasn't the only Christian who felt this way. Then I read Blue Like Jazz.

I finished it sometime during the middle of a plane ride back to Omaha. I can still remember how I felt and what went through my mind as I finished the last sentence. My eyes began to water as a slight smile spread across my face, my lower lip trembling ever so slightly. Right then and there - right on that plane ride back to Omaha - I wanted to jump up out of my seat and shout out for everyone to hear, "I'm not "f**ked up!!! I'm not f**ked up!" Finally I knew I wasn't alone (thank you for that, Don), and finally I could comfortably and openly receive the truths God wanted to impart into my life.

The stars were aligned or something, and since then I've been totally dumped on with awesomeness concerning God's truth. I took a class called "Jesus Christ: Liberator" that just rocked my world. I got to spend time in solidarity with the poor. I've learned about so many different Christian groups and communities that are living examples of these truths about the Kingdom of God. I experience an "Irresistible Rebolution" with Shane Claiborne, and attended the P.A.P.A. Fest -www.papafestival.org - in Tennessee. And so many other great things.

But man do I struggle. I've been back in my somewhat small hometown for a while now, and I've been sucked down by a meaningless job and by materialism, loneliness, and the party lifestyle embodied by this town. Trying to emulate the life of Jesus in this consumerist society where self-absorption is the norm is no easy task. (I'll take all the prayers I can get on that one.)

Anyway...so I warned you about the likelihood of a rant turned short essay, and there you have it. I guess I'm just sharing a bit of my own experience. I just can't explain how freaking glad I am to know that I'm not alone. And I'm grateful for the strength God has provided me to pursue (with loads of falling down) who He wants me to be. I'm trying!

And for the record, my Mom - chair of the republican party in her city, and probably George W's number one fan - knows that I'm an independent and loves me anyway, though she continually reminds me that someday I will grow out of it. We still hug a lot. And my Dad, well, he's on the ride with me a bit. Though also a Republican (to each his own), he's read all of Don's books and loves to talk with me about progressive ideas and thoughts, especially as they concern Christianity. He's a pretty open dude, and it's good to have a Dad like him. We still give lots of high fives.

Wish me luck. I'm in love with Jesus again, and this time it's not all about me. And damn does it feel good!

I agree with your position, although you might need some more reflection on the theological implications of #2.

I don't think it can be "right before Jesus and wrong after." I believe we need a deeper understanding of the texts themselves. We have to remember that the people who wrote the Bible were just people and that they may have the same inclinations as we do when confronted by an instinctual moment.

After all it doesn't take much memory on our part to recall other more current nations justifying war as a command from God.

The past few days of my life have been rocked by confusion (No, this isn't a bad blog entry). I keep coming back to the struggle on the marrage of the Old and New Testament. They always seem to be contradicting each-other....especially on the topic of warfare and violence; I thank you for voicing your thoughts on this. I also find myself often scrambling to defend my non-violence position against the five quesitons you challanged. I found your input on the topic very valuable...thanks.

I enjoyed your article and I commend you for writing it. I myself am a Christian Pacifist and my heart is always warmed by the conversations that take place on this topic, even those that have ended badly because they taught me something about myself and forced me to re-evaluate and better understand my convictions. My comment however is geared more towards the more recent conversation about the Old Testament and its relation to this topic. I warn you from the outset that I am no expert on this topic, but simply just another Pacifist trying to better understand the calling that Jesus has placed on the people of his kingdom. But having said that I was drawn last semester to write a paper concerning this topic of War and Violence in the Old Testament and as I would not want to post that entire thing because it would be far to long and probably too laborious for many to read (and I wouldn't blame you), there are just a couple things I would like to note. The first is that Holy war as a construct is very different than anything that we would see as war today. The rules were much different, and as is written in scripture the violent acts that are taking place in many cases are being done by God not by the Israelites themselves. Now Violence is still difficult to deal with but I feel that this offers a very interesting piece of this puzzle that we are trying to solve. Secondly it is not until the monarchy is established that we see an actual army of Israel being established, before that it was strictly voluntary, and it is interesting what God has to say to them about this idea of having an earthly King, for it seems that it was not his plan but what men wanted to do when they no longer wanted to continue leaving the work to God and the Judges. All in all I am basically trying to state that the OT is not to far from the NT and that if you analyze the OT text as a whole you can begin to see how this was never the intention of God to have an army created and this idea of an earthly kingdom that needed to be defended but that he wanted Israel to just trust him, something that they are not very good at (and neither are we), and why he takes measures to establish a new Kingdom, the Kingdom of God. I hope that this has inspired you to study hard for your own. Keep the faith and blessings to all.

I'm not sure as of yet what my interpretation of the scripture in regards to all this is. Honestly, it's just a subject that I haven't looked at hard enough.
I just wanted to ask if anyone has read the lecture that C. S. Lewis delivered during WWII entitled "Why I Am Not A Pacifist"; he is reconciling his stance to scripture and does so from a different stance than any of those mentioned above, I think. An interesting and provacative read, if nothing else.

This is a serious question. What is a good response to the travesties committed against other peoples. Like Serbs and Albanians, Iraqis and Kurds, the genocide in Africa.

What is a non-violent way to help these people who are getting raped/murdered by the 1000's?

Thanks,
Chuck

Jesus at the Temple
Matthew 21:12

NIV
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

MESSAGE
He Kicked Over the Tables
12-14Jesus went straight to the Temple and threw out everyone who had set up shop, buying and selling. He kicked over the tables of loan sharks and the stalls of dove merchants. He quoted this text:

My house was designated a house of prayer;
You have made it a hangout for thieves.
Now there was room for the blind and crippled to get in. They came to Jesus and he healed them.

I am no expert on hermeneutics, but this action doesnt appear to be one of a pacifist.

Wyatt,

Except that all the verse says is he overturned tables...how did you see violence toward humans in there? Pacifism doesn't mean you you can't be angry.

As for hermeneutics, you've quoted one passage, and I'm thinking Jesus telling his disciples to turn the other cheek trumps this one in support of pacifism.

I may need to re-read The Weight of Glory, but a few years ago I was rather unimpressed with some of ol' Clive's reasons in "Why I am Not a Pacifist".

Generally his thoughts seem to make sense for one living in Britain in his time, having spent time in WWI and having his ideological and religious background. But some of his defenses of war are, to me, a bit fragile. For example, his appeal to the great thinkers in history who have been pro-war as an almost peer-pressure motivation to not be pacifist. Also, his argument that so many classical Christian thinkers and authorities have approved of "righteous wars" and that supercedes a search for different answers in the actual teachings of Christ is a bit alarming to me. He states that to refute the teachings of classical Christianity with the teachings of a "historical Jesus" is folly, as there have been many "historical Jesus". But to be truthful, "classical Christianity" has erred countless times in very large ways and a return to the study of Christ's teachings have often proved this.

Or his assertion that the listeners to Christ's call to "Turn the other cheek" were people who would in no way have been thinking about violent uprisings or war. In fact, the populace to which Jesus spoke already had many violent uprisings and factions attempting to reinstate self-rule. One of the biggest pre-conceived notions in the Jewish community of that time was that the Messiah would be a violent conqueror. So Lewis' idea that corporate violence would be far from the minds of the hearer betrays a selective reading of the gospels, or at least a selective interpretation.

There are a great many other problems I personally have with "Why I am Not a Pacifist", though I will have to re-read it to go into more specifics. I, for the record, have a great affection for Lewis and his writings. They have stimulated my mind and faith for years. However, I find this to be one of his least convincing lectures.

Your struggle with Romans 13 seems like it need not be a struggle at all. In speaking your peace and disagreeing with current foreign policy, you are in no way stepping outside the boundaries of submission to authority. According to our Bill of Rights, you have all the freedom to speak out against violence. In fact, exercising your freedom is in accordance with the very tennants which the current authorities are subject to. You're fine. You don't even have to try to read between the lines on this passage.

On more thing about the Matt 21:12 reference, Jesus at the temple. It says he turned over tables and drove out all who were buying and selling there.

How do you think he drove them out? If it was nonviolent pacifism, I wonder how it worked. I mean, what kind of fury must it have taken to drive Jewish merchants from their source of income?

I don't think Jesus is a bully, like many of my consevative Christian friends seem to think he was, but I don't think the Bible portays him as pacifist in every instance either.

First I want to say great article.

As to point number 4, I would refer to what Daniel did when the government told him he could no longer pray to God. He did what was right and continued to pray even though the king had made the practice illegal.

great article, i ask myself the same questions sometimes.

The reason I mentioned the turning over of the tables is because it interest me in the same way that it interests Mr. Fifield. I dont see how you can drive the leaders of the church without brute force. I recognise the word "drove" though to mean more than Jesus saying "Now, now, you ought not do that."

13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So 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. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

http://www.ecapc.org/articles/RensbeD_HS2_Temple.asp
I read this article which states that perhaps the whipping was only applied to the cattle, but I dunno. I just dunno.

When it comes to the passage on driving the money changers and such from the temple, I think that putting too much emphasis on it is perhaps a tad misguided. Given the other texts on Jesus' life and reactions, and the plethora of examples of non-violence from the early church, even the church in Acts, it seems that taking this one passage to overturn the rest of it seems unbalanced.

I do not say this as criticism to any who struggle with it, as indeed I do, and it is good to wrestle with all of this. Perhaps we will never be 100% sure. But seeing as Christ's actions in the temple that day can be construed in a variety of ways, ought we not to simply match it up with the example He lived throughout His ministry, and the example His disciples obviously felt was imparted to them? The early church is rife with non-violent responses to evil, and it was remarkably effective. And if Jesus truly did eat with tax collectors, slum with sinners, and invite those without sin to cast the first stone (which was the lawful way to meet evil with violence, a method that even sinless Jesus did not take), it seems likely that His actions in the temple that day did indeed gel with His earlier actions and teachings. But I can't say for sure.

Then again, He was also God and could more or less do whatever He wanted... I'm not attempting to put Christ in a box. I'm merely saying that perhaps this isn't as big a sticking point, vague as it is, as we all tend to think it is.

I rarely get into hese conversations because they ultimately turn to US invovlement in WW2. Were we not justified in stopping the further slaughter of the Jews? Unfortunately the answer is often no, which, IMHO, is absolutely inexcusable. There are two examples of Christian disobediance in the face of the Nazi regime. One is Corrie Ten Boom, who was imprisoned by the Nazis for hiding Jews in her home, and the other is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was part of a Christian plot to asassinate Hitler, in addition to helping Jews escape through Switzerland. Corrie Ten Boom's story is one of forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation with those who tormented her and murdered her sister, while Bonhoeffer's story ends rather abruptly with the asassination plot being uncovered and him being hanged in a German prison. I think both people were incredibley sold out followers of Christ, but the paths taken in the face of violence most definetely provide some food for thought.

good stuff, I have never put much thought to it. now I think about it. thanks-

I find it very interesting to see who Jesus was most "aggressive" towards, ...the pharisees. Jesus never got to angry at the non-believers. My guess is he knew lost people should act like lost people. However, when he saw the "religious rulers" of the day making a mockery of the temple, rightous anger filled him to the top. Would it be O.K. to use violence with believers and not non-believers?

Hmm... Something to chew on

But away from that one aspect of this discussion, I am still curious about the whole covenant theology. How does this work? When Jesus said he came back to fulfill the law, what does that mean? Isn't the God of the old testiment the God of the new? And revelation says when Jesus returns there will be another battle that envolves the living. What will the pacifist do?

Thank you for this clear and humble article. I rarely talk about my move toward non-violence, because I couldn't face the arguments. Your work has given me a little courage.

I recently had only recently acquired the attitude of non violence on the day that I responded to a friend's question of "why don't you join the army" with "because I'm a pacifist." A random stranger walking by responded me with such anger that it knocked me back on my heels, asking me some of these very same questions, and of course I had no answers, only my instinctual repulsion to violence. This article certainly helps me to articulate some of my reasoning and formulate my own responses to people who are somehow offended by my refusal to.... shall we say.... kick ass.

I'm reminded of what Utah Phillips said on his CD "the past didn't go anywhere" about how being a pacifist is like being a recovering alcoholic. You acknowledge that you have a "problem," that is, you are a violent person, but you are trying not to be that way anymore. Maybe I would instinctively resort to violence in certain situations, but that wouldn't make me less of a pacifist, it would make me a pacifist who had suffered a relapse.

The fact that violence has that whole circular effect.... I hurt you, so you hurt me more, so I hurt you even more... etc.... tells me that it's not the solution to anything. Based on the logic, I don't feel the need to justify my position from the bible. Violence simply isn't a logical solution, unless your intent is to increase violence. Show me a passage where Jesus whips out a short sword and tells someone to switch to a democratic way of managing his household, else die, and I'll happily change my view.

all that is to say, good article. thank you ;)

This is a well-written article, Jonathan, and I can very easily respect your position. This issue has been on my mind since I read BLJ last year and I was thinking about what it meant for me to be "pro-life." If I would say I am pro-life, then I should be for life for everyone, which includes prisoners, enemies, etc. But then this issue gets very sticky in the stem-cell debate, which is another topic for another day.

But just as much as I can respect your position, and have been thinking about what it means for me, I have just as much respect for those who serve in protecting our lives: military, police, law enforcement. I think about that a lot now as I'm stepping on a plane next week and am thankful there are people who are trying to protect me which will give me an opportunity to spend more time on this earth with my wife and baby daughter.

Many, many of those people who serve in these roles hope to never have to use violence to keep peace. I had a long talk in an airport last March with a serviceman on his way home for a 2-week break from Iraq. He moved me with his stories, his commitment, and his motivations. Despite that I think the Iraq was wrong, I could not deny that this was a man who would lay his life down for another man.

And I pray that much more for peace so he would no longer have to fight.

Dear sir,

After reading your questions and answers what really came to my mind was that you are not far from making it into the Kingdom of our God.

Your answers were 100% right and sound but i only want to comment based on old testament times.

Let us not forget that the Israelites never went to war they only defended wars when their neighbours attacked them so the reason God gave them command to get rid of the inhabitants of the promised land was because of their immorality sexaulity which satan tried to used to avoid our Lord and saviour from been born so that He will destroy he satan`s work here on earth . So since they settled on this promised land where our Lord wanted to extablished His kingdom on earth every other war brought to them and they have to defend themselves.

Somewhere else i have condemned the the war in Iraq and every other places where more than 3000 lives have been lost and others were saying that they went to Heaven nobody went to heaven in a senseless war where most of them were shooting by hate while others raped young girls last night and were death the following day.

If we choose to be christains it must be by praticality not taking part of the Bible where it soothes us.

Good article.

Thanks.

This may be mountain-making out of a semantics molehill, but I also think it's important to realize that Jesus doesn't really fall into our modern-day categories of "pacifist" and "non-violence." Don't get me wrong. I agree with a lot of what you're saying in this article, and I think many pacifist and non-violent values are good. I wouldn't call Jesus a pacifist though, because that would be trying to jam Him into something I've made. Jesus is Jesus--He has a way better than pacifism and non-violence, better than complete inaction, better than militarism.

You did a good job framing this.
============

#1 This question also assumes that the person who has not been formed by living non-violently has the same options as the person who has been habituated to look for non-violent solutions. This question checks character at the door.

Great article, you guys rock.

I'm often surprized by christian pacifist that don't have a ready defense.

Question #1: Defend the helpless ie Jesus vs the priest and money changers with a whip that He braided. Or Jesus vs the men about to attack the adultress (she was guilty but they were perverting justice). Or you vs the scum attacking that little girl in the alley or your wife or children. He defended the helpless but never Himself. It would be godless to walk past that alley and say "God bless you." but do nothing else. However, defense of self is too close to pride and selfishness, the first sins.

Question #2 The Old Testament was a foreshadowing of what was to come ie the temple was a building now it is our bodies. OT priest were not allowed to fight. NT 1 Peter 2 now all christians are called a royal priesthood, a holy nation, fighting not agaist flesh and blood but against the powers and principalities of the air. So as priest we fight but not against flesh and blood.

Question #4 Romans 13 is about police. The soldiers of apostaic times were primarily cops of the PAX Romana. Read the NT and see how often policing was their job. The Ante Nicene Fathers over and over forbid christians from joining the military and if they were already in (there was no getting out) they were forbidded to kill. Many died saying "We will die for Ceasar we will not fight for him."

Let's face it wars basically grow out of greed of the wealthy. And the christan soldier must hand over his discretion to someone who possibly or likely has evil motives. However, the sword is not carried in vain because christian police judge / execute only
one evil doer doing evil right now to prevent the innocent from being killed and totally at their discretion. (Discretion: the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice) Also if the evil person is caught later but not in the act of murder then the police do not execute him but instead bring that person before a court to be judged.

Basically a cop shooting a criminal is an emergency act to meant save the innocent from harm. Or if himself it is to protect the symbol (an officer in uniform)and judge of the government that God has ordained. Romans 13.

War though is murder on a massive scale.

Just a little addendum to my last post Remember that the OT is afore shadowing of what was to come. The same God who purified the land of Canaan through Joshua by military warfare is now purifying the whole world through Jesus by spiritual warfare. The sword of His Word. Ain't that cool.

(Jesus' name in Hebrew is Joshua but Bible translators didn't want to confuse the laity with two Joshuas so they went with Jesus.)

Well done, Mr. Fitzgerald...

I found your article on Christian pacifism very insightful and quite appropriate in light of our current situation of global discord. I must say that my favorite point was the sharp difference you made between pacifism and inaction [point #5]. It seems that the very word "pacifist" has somewhat of a negative connotation, pertaining to an idea of inactivity and apathy. I am glad you drew that comparison in your writings. We 'can' passionately make a difference without debasing our actions to violence.

Well spoken, Mr. Fitzgerald...

Your words have greatly encouraged this reader!

I too re-read "Why I Am Not a Pacifist" because of your article. And I agree with most of the posts here - that is, Clive Staples' reasons for not being a pacifist are certainly not mine. A pretty weak argument all-around only made significant by the fact that the guy is as close as you can come to being a canonized protestant. I'm still not convinced by any argument for the other side, either. The one thing that I came away with from "Why I Am Not a Pacifist" is the idea that perhaps it is not as absolute as some people like to make it. It could be right for me to take a path of non-violence but not for someone else. I don't think argumentation, at least of the sort we are used to, changes very minds. Why must we be so convinced of our own rightness all the time? Why can't we just mind our own business?

In response to those that say "What would happen if everyone just wanted to lay down and not fight? The forces of good would just be wiped out!

Really? So answer me this did the ancient christians in Rome A) bide their time and take Rome over with swords and spears and conquered Rome. or B) Were they crucified, thrown to the arena to be eaten by wild animals and burnt alive and in doing so conquered Rome?

You know what question I get tired of hearing?

Please stop dipping your sword of proliferation in my cheerios, or are you deaf?

I guess I could stop answering "What?" every time and leave my dad's cheerios alone for once.

But, he knows I'm just an a**hole and not actually deaf, so it's still a stupid question.

i like Paul's point. I think it's a very good addition to this very good article.

What about WWII what do Christian Pacifist say would should have done then?

I really am asking this question with all sincerity. I can't imagine if America had not intervened what the world would be like now. So I am honestly wondering what we are to do in that situation.

After reading this article which I thought was good it left wondering why the argument has become about personal choice and less about government action. In my humble opinion I think you can be a Christian and be a pacifist but I also think you can serve in the military helping to defend the defenseless by literally laying down your life for another. So Jonathon's beliefs are not only valid but are really between him and God. For me the scary part about the article are the fairly lame and ignorant questions that seem to be the most popular which goes to prove a larger point ad that is most Christians don't know their bible is an intimate way, which is a story for another day but quite tragic on many levels.

Now in regards to my first point about personal vs. state I think needs to be addressed. A government does not have the option of acting out of a position of personal belief but rather what is in the countries and the it's citizens best interest as well as what will best serve the world as a whole. Sometimes this means picking up arms in reaction to an event or to prevent one. I find it hard to understand why everyone gets so worked up over the fact that we are in Iraq. Many of the comments I have seen for being against it fall far short of the millions of lives that were lost in that country under its former regime. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone by not being a pacifist and entering a comment on this page but I think honest and open discussion is good and in my opinion is severely lacking in our country.

Again I have nothing against anyone who does not agree with me as I think that's what makes this country great but please don't close your mind to other opinions or you will become what you hate most.

A friend recommended this article to me because I'm honestly trying to struggle with the role of violence in a Christian's life. I don't know what I consider myself really yet. I like the questions and the arguments you make and hopefully, as my friend said, we don't get tired of these questions and answers because they need to be said and resaid and pondered and repondered.

However, my question for you, Jonathan, is that in the answer to quesiton 3 you say that Jesus put no qualifiers on his call to nonviolence and that should be that. However, in your answer to question 4 you say there are unspoken qualifiers that Paul would/should have made. Seems like a double standard so that your argument fits. Hope this doesn't come across as overly critical, I'm just curious as to how you'd reconcile that. Thanks!

Thank you all for your comments. This has been a very interesting and inspiring conversation to follow. To date I have chosen to sit back and watch the conversation take place, but since the above question is directed so specifically to me, and since Jordan urged me to reply, I will do so.

The question is a good one, and I happily offer my best answer. The reader must remember, however, as with my article, this is the answer of a person still asking questions; still seeking understanding. I guess the simplest way to answer the question regarding why I said that Jesus offers no apparent qualifiers, and why I offered a qualifier in my argument regarding Romans 13 comes from my attempt to understand the Bible as a whole. I can test Jesus' words regarding non-violence against the greater story that the Bible tells and see no reason to believe that in his radical redefining of the law he means anything different than exactly what he says. I must apply the same reasoning, then, to Paul.

First, I don't see Paul saying anything that contradicts Jesus' message of non-violence, affirming my view that Jesus intended no qualifiers on his teaching on non-violence. What I do see Paul doing is telling his readers how to live under an oppressive government. Paul, as a Christ follower, clearly understands Jesus' call to non-violence and is actually passing that message along here. So, the "unless" I mention does not open the door for any kind of violent opposition. Why I believe there is a qualifier on Paul's words in Romans 13 is that it doesn't square with the rest of the Bible without it. That is to say, Paul saying to submit to the government cannot supersede any other commands that God hands down. If the situation should arise in which a government mandate attempts to prevent a Christian from obeying God, the "unless" would certainly come into play. We of course know that Paul spent a good amount of time in prison for disobeying orders from the government. This fact alone stands as evidence that Paul understood the "assumed unless."

There are plenty of places throughout the Bible where these "qualifiers" are used. I did not mean, by stating that Jesus did not intend any on his non-violence teachings, to vilify qualifiers. If we are to understand the Bible as a complete text, our interpretation must find a way to reconcile the work of many authors done over the course of centuries. The beauty of it is, however, that all is reconcilable. Using the gift of interpretation and the leading of the Holy Spirit, I feel certain that the story that the Bible tells is cohesive, has a beginning, middle and end, and is about God's love for his creation.

Thanks, Jonathan, that's a great answer!

Will Fifield,

Why does it matter that they were Jewish merchants who didn't want to be separated from their money? Wouldn't this be true of all merchants, regardless of nationality?

As followers of Christ, we need to carefully avoid using old stereotypes that are really just racism thinly veiled.

I can't imagine a world where non-violence and opposition to evil could co-exist. Some of the history's greatest evils were defeated as a result of war. Echoing Carole's comment, where would we be had the US not intervened in WWII?

Interesting article. I'd simply like to say that I am not a pacifist and if anyone doesn't like it, I'd like to punch him/her in the nose.
I would like to respond to the comments in the posts about God in the new and old testament. God is the same throughout scripture and history. You must look at the OT through the lens of Jesus' death on the cross.
The O.T. is bloody, violent, brutal, filled with war and judgement, much at God's command. God has destroyed countless armies and nations. He has used different nations to bring about His judgement. Jesus wept at the sight of Jerusalem, knowing that God(that includes Jesus himself, by the way) was going to bring judgement on it's people for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. A.D. 70 was a bad year for the Jews. God brought that about.
Jesus, the Word of God, is all over the O.T. Read the Prophets. He didn't suddenly become a pacifist in the N.T. What he did by dying on the cross was the most aggressive thing he could have done to save us from our sins. Everything was set up for that moment in time, and he just walked right into it. That is not passive, that is powerful. He did not passively submit to death, He actively submitted to it and there is a big difference in that. He walked right into it with eyes wide open.
Looking at the O.T. through the lens of the cross shows God's love for even the pagan gentile nations, His patience with them. God actively was involved in the shaping of all history, even caring about Gentiles.

God did not undergo some drastic change, nor do some cosmic rethinking between the O.T. times and the coming of Jesus. To think that God is Love, and to see the destruction He wreaked on Sodom and Gomorrah is not contradictory. To think that God possibly got some kick out of destroying those cities is preposterous (looking through the lens of the cross).
To think that God enjoyed seeing the Egyptian army drown in the Red Sea is unrealistic (looking through the lens of the cross).
Even though guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have really been total idiots and have embarassed the Christian community in the past with their explanations of wars and attacks on and by the U.S., their stupidity has undercut the reality that God does hold nations in the palms of his hand. Scripture attests to that reality.

Hey, I'm sure I have probably ticked someone off (maybe even a pacifist) or bored someone to death with a long post.
Now, does anyone want punched? :)

Well, that was a fun read. I'm still questioning a lot of things, for instance, how to reconcile the american-evangelical doctrines of hell with a God who preaches non-violence. Eternal conscious torment sounds pretty violent to me... but I'm still pulled toward pacifism. So now I question what hell really means throughout scripture. I simply don't accept that hell must exist for God to be just or for heaven to be the sweet eternal party it is envisioned as from so many pulpits.

Now thats the struggle I have when I think of non-violence and our Father and any help from all of you thoughtful, lovely people would be quite helpful. I feel sort of trapped in a pretty uncomfortable, existential funk as a result of this misalignment of my faith.
Now to you ben, I think you should reread the response Jonathan has to question #5 in the article. Your argument doesn't stand to that response. Simply, "pacifism is not the same as inaction". Actually, I agree with Fitz that it is almost always the more difficult and thoughtful ACTION to respond in a nonviolent way. I hope that we all can approach this issue "looking through the lens of the cross" as you said, because there we see the biggest arsenal imaginable being forgone for self-sacrifice... and love.

Courtney you reminded me of the female version of myself. I wen through the exact thing and read Blue Like Jazz and was like awesome I'm not alone. Now I'm back in a small town and I just watch and get irritated at the close minded thoughts the Church so often has. I feel like I'm arrogant at times and that I 'm tring to criticize my own Christianity and I say I just need to have faith but then I think Christ would want me to question but then I think I'm just painting a Jesus that reflects my own personality...o well it was nice to see there is someone out there who thinks the same.

Patrick, I have the same problems with Hell. Have you read George MacDonald? He has some interesting thoughts on the subject. Others I've read have suggested that many of Jesus' comments concerning Hell were actually specific prophecies about Israel as a nation, which were fulfilled, as referred to above, in AD 70. I'm not completely reconciled either way, but I throw these perspectives out to you as food for thought.

This is an old article, so I don't even know if this comment will be read or posted...but!
I ended up skimming quite a few of the posts, but I noticed no references to Revelations. Read Revelations 19:11-18. Jesus Makes War.

What's that mean to us? Are we supposed to turn our cheeks and all that? Sure. Absolutely! But don't say Jesus is a pacifist. He isn't. And is perfectly just in the war that He wages. Why? The Bible says He is. And furthermore, the Old Testament foretold the coming of the conquering Messiah. That's still Jesus. And it isn't metaphorical. God is going to judge the world through Christ someday. That's a reality.

And again, what does that mean to us? We are to love our neighbors and enemies. It's for Him to judge. I'm rambling. I'm actually pacifistic as well, but I do not think that when Christ comes back He's going to make nice with people who are His enemies. He's going to pour out His perfectly just wrath. And that's okay, even if I can't comprehend how it works.

I'm just wondering why you have to call yourself a "Christian Pacifist." I mean if pacifism is the heart of Christ's teaching then why can't you just go with the title Christian and explain your faith from there? I guess I am, so tired of people calling themselves "Christian ________." We've got today, Christian artists and Christian homemakers and Christian plumbers and Christian Magicians, etc... Am I the only one done with this kind of classification system?

I liked this article. I didn't read all the comments posted and maybe I should have. If I am repeating something please forgive me.

thanks to BWC for reposting. thanks to all of you for reading and commenting.

i guess the only thing i want to add, after all these months, is that I did not mean to give the impression that i believe God (or Jesus, as God) is a pacifist. But that he commanded us to be because of our inability to be Holy judges, as he is.

let the conversation continue!

While I am not a pacifist in ANY way, I am not trying to instigate debate either. But I do want to share some thoughts on the issue.

First of all, good article. I was reminded of a MLK sermon that I listened to recentely. I do have a great respect for pacifism in principle, and I found the article an impressive statement of individual thought.

However, our world is very different from the world of the New Testament. They were living under a government of non-Christians. Does Romans 13 cease to apply if there are Christians in the government? While it is true that the Ante-Nicene fathers forbid Christians from joining the millitary, it was more likey because the millitary was the arm of opression upon Christians. Our American millitary exists to defend, however, not persecute.

I am Christian. But I am also American. I was born into a country I did not choose. I was given a safe and secure life, free of war, genocide, apartheid and violence because of the sacrifice of many brave men for the last 200+ years. I was born into a state of earthly debt, thus endowed with an obligation to preserve this way of life for my posterity.

My father served in the millitary. My Grandfather served in the millitray. His father before him and so on. I will serve also (though I am currentely in college). American soldiers are warriors, but not murderers. Their role and purpose is spelled out in the soldier's creed:

I am an American Soldier. I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, Trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my quipment and myself. I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

This is not anti-Christian. Quite the opposite, it is an extension of the self-sacrifice and willingness to die for others that Jesus commanded us to exhibit. An older version of the Soldier's Creed contained this line, "No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything, for pleasure, profit, or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country." Millitary service does require acts of violence, often horrible violence. But it's defensive violence, to protect one's own people from an outside force which would do them harm.

However, just because one supports their country and millitary does not mean they should blindly follow their leaders into unjust wars. If my country was truly threatened, I would not hesitate to kill, die, or do both. However, no one should kill or die for an empty or evil cause. I disagree VERY much with the idea that millitary personel should blindly follow their president simply because he is the commander-in-cheif. An older version of the Soldier's Creed said, "I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform."

To follow an evil leader is to be a bad soldier, according to the US Army's own ethos. If that means being jailed or prosecuted for one's convictions, so be it.

Also, Jesus did not submit to violence at his crucifixion. Jesus was the author of said violence. A brutal punishment was nesscessary for the atonement of sins, and Jesus directed this punishment onto himself. Every lash, bruise, and moment of unimaginable pain was an act of violence Jesus had planned for himself before the beginning of time. Jesus exhibited defensive violence, because he inflicted violence on himself in our defense. Jesus was the ultimate soldier. He crushed his enemy with atom bomb ferocity by focusing the attack upon himself, and thus brought about the ultimate end of all violence with the ultimate act of violence -- killing God himself. But not only that, he did not stay dead. He came back. Alive. Jesus is the only soldier to ever lay down his life yet also come home. Only Jesus. To my knowledge, everyone planted in Arlington stayed there (except for that one guy who got moved to a civilian cemetary because he lied about his millitary service before he died).

Another thing I would point out is that Christianity did not really "conquer" Rome through its non-violence. While Roman emporer Constantine did become a Christian, his first action was to emblazon "Christian" inconography on sheilds, banners and other implements of war. If the early church was pacifistic, than Constantine's warped "Christianity" was a giant middle finger pointed at everything the old martyrs stood for. Ask the Jews about Constantine (most of their current hostility towards Christians stems from the Roman church). Christians were STILL persecuted in Constantine's time and even long after because they didn't subscribe to the "standard" interpretation of Christianity.

And that's all I have to say about that, Jenny.

I know I just posted in the 2nd to the last posting, but I've been thinking. (Scary thought, I know.) My thoughts have been revolving around "what if" scenarios, so know right off that the following is mere speculation on my part. And realistically, I'm just asking a few questions.

The U.S. had considered itself for some time, as a Christian nation, yes? So, if we were to follow the logic that we should have been acting in the "turn your cheek" mentality as a nation, how would that have affected the shape of the world as we know it?

Let's go back to WWII. If we, as a nation, had decided to turn the other cheek when Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, or to the injustice of the Holocaust, would the outcome of that war been different? Would the world, as a whole, been a better place?

What about the American Revolution? Would we have even been a nation as we know it had we not declared war for our freedom?

Again, I'm not sure how this works in the broad scope of Christianity. But if we are to be active in helping the hurting of the world, caring for the orphans and the widows, how does that have play out if we allow tyrants to rule over these oppressed when we have the power to stop it?

I'm not suggesting that we, as a nation, are God's chosen vessel of vengenance, but doesn't He have a habit of using nations (Godless or no) to bring about retribution? He used the heathen nations of old to bring judgement upon Israel, and then brought justice upon those same nations for assailing His people.

Just something to ponder.

I think when a nation uses force in the interest of protecting people than, yes, they are doing it in the service of God. Take David and Goliath, for example. David did not recive any revelation from God saying "thou shalt smite Goliath" ... he just knew it was the right thing to do. And he did not fight for glory or money or power. He fought, "so that all the world shall know that there is a God in Israel."

But when a country starts waging wars for economic growth or to further a dictatorial Empire, than they are no longer glorifying God. America definitely commited this sin in the 1800s with the "manifest destiny" concept, in which it was believed that God gave the entire continent to the USA. The actions of men like Sherman and Custer are a black stain on the history of our nation.

Even the Civil War, which many like to think was about ending black slavery, was about futhering America's "empire." The atrocities commited on the South -- US born citizens -- were horrors by any civilized standard. And despite Lincoln's banter about freedom for slaves, blacks were subjected to the same property destruction, rape and theft that whites were in Sherman's infamous march.

As a social conservative, it irritates me when the political left claims an exclusive hold on the word "progress."

America has CERTAINLY progressed from the 1800s, and the major progressions (slavery abolished, black and female voting rights, desegreation) are things that people on BOTH sides of the political isle generally agree on. Let's not forget that liberals like Robert Byrd were pro-segregation while many conservatives like Charlton Heston were against segregation.

I don't think one has to socialist or pacifist in order to be "progressive." Our "progressive" era has also brought back pre-Christian Era trends like sexual imorality and an overall lack of respect and formality in society. These parts of the late 20th Century culture are more like the Dark Ages than the Enlightenment, thus in many ways the current "progress" has also been regress.

Knowing how to propery apply Capitalist markets and millitary force so that they benefit instead of harm is also progressive, and can absolutely be glorifying to Christ.

However, I do think pacifism can glorfy Christ as well. True pacifism requires a very disciplined and unnatural courage; the willingness to die rather than violate one's principle of non-violence.