Hello! the Jesus Manifesto is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- www.jesusmanifesto.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- No interest in this question? Maybe it would help if I was a little more explicit. Here's a piece from a journal entry on this subject, from several years ago, referring to a Methodist belief...
- I do not use twitter...sorry folks
- I think a few quotations from the ol’ Declaration of Independence may be in order: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...
- I just put together an evening prayer that we will do here next week (answering the independence day rhetoric of this weekend). I used several Psalters songs, with us singing the "Home,...
- I'm pretty sure that our founding documents state that that freedoms they laid out are granted from our creator... the government was there essentially to be the violent arm of God to protect...
the Jesus Manifesto
following the way of Jesus in the land of our captivity
My friend Rod recently said he’d enjoy having a few of us – his Mennonite friends – try to persuade him to pacifism. The other three of us there all looked at each other and grinned.
“Oh, this isn’t a one-day kind of decision, friend,” Rusty said to Rod with a laugh. We all nodded.
Soon enough, [...]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "What’s ... Continue reading »
“Oh, this isn’t a one-day kind of decision, friend,” Rusty said to Rod with a laugh. We all nodded.
Soon enough, [...]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "What’s ... Continue reading »
11 months ago
What happens when there is no 'benefit' to being hurt....if I get mauled by a bear, does my lack of defense somehow benefit the world, or just cost me my life?
I remember a particularly volatile conversation at Mark's house where he and I (both new fathers) talked over non-violence and the protecting of children. I can't say that I'm at ease on any side of the debate.
11 months ago
Here, then, is where our language exposes its plain limits: when I say "nonviolence," I mean something different from the Buddhist or Hindu sense of nonviolence ("wouldn't hurt a fly" kind of thing). Yet it's entirely fair for anyone to mishear "nonviolence" as a refusal to participate in any level of any kind of coercion towards anything (perhaps "pure nonviolence.").
And then there's those sticky family issues... have you read Yoder's "What Would You Do?"
11 months ago
And no I have not read "What Would You Do?"
11 months ago
Peace is not only the absence of violence. When America pretended not to see the Holocaust in order to stay out of the war, was that an appropriate Christian response? I don't think so. I think Jesus calls us to ultimately and above all else, value life - ours, others', creation, all that. Sometimes, most of the time, the way to do that is to find peaceable responses to problems. But sometimes, it is not.
I live it Atlanta, one of the worst places in the world for human trafficking. If I see a child getting abducted and don't try to stop it because I am supposedly a follower of Jesus, I've crossed the line from someone who is trying to improve people's lives to someone who is trying to live by a pre-conceived, non-contextualized set of ideas. That is a dangerous place to be.
11 months ago
In your Atlanta example i would ask. What would stop you from attempting to stop this from happening using non-lethal intervention. Such as grabbing up the child and running with her, or grabbing her up -falling to the ground with the child in your arms, or drawing attention to what is happening by shouting at the top of your voice, DO NOT KIDNAP THAT CHILD, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT GOD IS WATCHING AND WILL NOT LET YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS FOREVER! or by taking down the liscence # of the abductors vehicle, or following the kidnapper to where they are taking her and reporting this location to the police. or by placing your body in the way of their progress. There is no limit to the amount of laying down our own lives (bodies, comfort zone, etc.) for the sake of others.
We have been pretty much programed to prefer contemplating the use of lethal force as a first response. It is viewed as being a much safer approach to most threats... and yes, why risk my person for the sake of a crime committing stranger?
"Jesus did" and "Jesus said to" is the only viable response to this question.
I do not think that the term "Pacifism" really describes what we are called to in all of this. Better terms may be "Active Messianic Love" and/or "Living as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven".
It has helped me in my pilgrimage from being an angry, violent man to becoming an ambassador of Christ in this area to really examine the idea of "Ambassadorship" in all of this.
It has helped to ask myself these questions: Does an ambassador get involved in the politics (vote, lobby, campaign, etc.), policing (the majestry or governance), and military of the country that he is an ambassador to? No, No and No. Is the role of an Ambassador to become involved in the affairs of his host country? -No. An ambassador is a communicator who communicates to his host country, what his own country is like. What does the term Ambassador mean? the dictionary says "1. A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government to another." So, we have the opportunity to represent the Kingdom of Heaven to the kingdom of this world wherein we reside.
Martyrdom occurs when a kingdom of this world wearies of hearing about the Kingdom of Heaven and simply sends the faithful ambassador home to his own King. We are faithful ambassadors when we declare the "norms" of our Heavenly Kingdom in contrast with the ways of the kingdoms of this world. This can hardly be considered a pacifistic endeavor. If we did this whenever we got the opportunity we would soon wear out our welcome amongst those who are choosing to perish.
One important point that a good ambassador, from the absolutly most powerful and coming Kingdom, would be to warn every person to take the opportunity to pre-surrender and live, as the coming Kingdom will not countenance rebellion and only consist of those who approve of the coming King and His ways.
I said all of this to say that living in the way of "Active Messianic Love" or "Living as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven" is a demonstration of confidence in the promises of our God, the blessings and curses of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Messiah Yahushuah. A particular and only true God with a particular view of the past, present, and future Whose Kingship and Kingdom will have no end. Is there not a cause? Is there no reason for having and showing great confidence in the LORD? Live boldly in the Messiah and give place for the vengence of the LORD, watching and warning with all dilligence.
I must confess that it took 31 years since first following Jesus at age 16 in 1971, until 2002, with much contemplation and resistance to embracewhat was really the self evident truth of the gospel that I suspected was true at the first (if I had only been able to read and simply embrace the truth back then, but, I was too American, I suppose, and had a hard time realizing that Jesus is now a king and that His Kingdom is now and real, and my citizenship in His Kingdom is now as well). I had opportunity to fellowship with a small Mennonite fellowship in California in 1976-7, which I passed up, (a group who taught a 'Natural Family Planning" class that my betrothed (31st annivversary last January) and I attended together), where I grew up, but thought their aversion to military service and war was too strange for me. I never directly brought up the topic with them, I guess that I really did not want to look at it head on. Little did I know then, that that group was the most radical and right on bunch of believers who really studied and applied the Scripture to their lives in a simple and most profound way.
I hope that my rambling has been beneficial.
11 months ago
11 months ago
I remember reading about a situation in California a few months ago. A man was found late at night on a rural road. He had an appoximately 2 year old child with him and he was stomping, kicking, punching and picking up and throwing this child down on the ground. People who witnessed this called the police and when the officer arrived, the man refused to stop the attack and the officer shot the man dead. The todler was so badly mutilated from the assault that the coroner had to identify the body using dna.
Now I am going into a hypothetical situation involving the real situation I stated above. I would like to think that I am commited to peace. However, if I had been in the situation as a witness to this particular attack, I think that I probably would have at least made an attempt at stomping that man into jelly. I think the sight of a child being attacked in a brutal attack like that would have enraged me to the point of casting my convictions aside. Perhaps I am a poor Christian for feeling that way, but what would Brandon Rhodes have done if you had been in that situation?
11 months ago
11 months ago
I 'spose that nonviolence doesn't necessarily mean "non-engagement". There is also in me a very deep desire toward, as you said quite accurately, "stomping that man into jelly."
Yet as I reflect on it and step back for a moment, what in this situation compels any of us to only consider two options (squish-into-jelly or gawk-and-wait-for-cops). Surely I can get in the way (see: www.cpt.org) of it all. I can hold him back, I can take the child and run, I can simply stand between them.
Yet I don't know what I'd do.
The temptation to squish-into-jelly in the midst of holding him back or running with the child would certainly throb within me. But I suppose that is where all of us can be praying that should such a situation ever arise, that the Holy Spirit can harness our heart's impulses for God's bigger purposes. I 'spose I'm left with the hope of God being faithful in guiding the minutae of the situation even as I try, however failingly, to be likewise loyal to him and his kingdom.
Still, I'm unsure...
11 months ago
I would do anything I could to get that guy to stop. But I would do it in a way that disarmed him, restrained him, or rendered him unconscious. There is no way that God would be pleased if I beat the shit out of him for the sake of vengeance.
Would I want to kick him in the face repeatedly? Yes. But is that what our longsuffering God wants us to do? No.
In the end, my view of nonviolence allows for physical restraint. Even rendering someone unconscious...even, perhaps, doing some physical harm. But never destruction.
11 months ago
11 months ago
I used to train in Aikido. It is considered a "non-violent" martial art because it uses no punches or kicks. But I consider that to be a bit of a misnomer since it replaces them with breaking bones, ripping tendons and tearing muscles. It has as its core goal to disable the attacker so that they can attack no more. The end result is not usually death, but intense pain.
I like your idea of rendering him unconscious, however you may want to think that through a little more carefully. A blow to the head could just as easily kill as it could knock uncounscious.
11 months ago
What would I do? I'm not sure. Since I could conceivably be put into mortal danger by the average sixth grader, my options might be more limited than others. I like Mark's approach, even though the difference between restraint and retribution might be a tricky row to hoe. But it seems to me that wrestling with such questions is preferable to chucking the ideal because some of the questions get difficult. There's no guarantee of this, but I'd like to think that our response to difficult situations will be different (even if not neat and ideal) if we approach them from an a priori commitment to pacifism rather than a rejection of pacifism on the basis that we might run into just such a situation. My suspicion is that once we concede to the necessity of violence in certain circumstances, we leave an opening for that circle to widen.
Some consider monogamy both extreme and unrealistic. Most of us, if we are honest, would falter in the right (or wrong, as it were) circumstances. We could, I suppose, spin hypothetical yarns in which the circumstances were tweaked for maximum temptation, and wonder what we might do, though that would quickly get lurid. My point is that an argument against monogamy on the basis that some of us might not hold to that ideal in all circumstances is not one I think any of us would make, nor one that most of us would find convincing. For me, that sort of argument against pacifism is just as unconvincing.
What would be more interesting is an argument that Jesus (and Paul, et al) did not teach, model, or presume a commitment to nonviolence, or that they did, but left some clear guidelines as to possible exceptions.
11 months ago
If we concede the necessity of violence, but then try to limit its practice to only those situations where it truly was a necessity, we might find that we achieved peace sooner, than a more austere unequivocal stand. I believe it is possible to concede the possible necessity of violence from an a priori commitment to peace.
11 months ago
To me, those are important questions. I don't think it's possible to outline an ethics that works for everyone, so I reject that as a goal or a measuring stick.
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
Do we, the Church, change slowly because of the radical stances of the few within us, or are we supposed to be that radical edge that speaks prophetically to the world? Perhaps the world would move towards peace if we, the Church were radical witnesses to peace, rather that marching in step with the status quo.
11 months ago
11 months ago
One could narrate biblical history in such a way that God was, in fact, gradually narrowing the limits of our use of violence until, in Jesus, he demands (only of those who would follow Jesus), total renunciation. That can be done -- I'm not interested in doing that here and now.
In fact (appearances very much to the contrary, I know), I'm not that interested in telling my pacifist conversion story or defending the position as if it were an intellectually superior position that can take all comers. I had originally said I was going to stay out of this one -- which lasted about three posts into the melee (is that an inappropriate metaphor given our topic?)
What I am interested in, or at last curious about, is the way in which we are seeing things through different lenses. In particular, I suspect, from some comments other places, that you and I share similar views of human origins. That being said, I'm going to take a wild guess that for you, in light of our fallenness, pacifism is impractical, perhaps even irresponsible. And depending on how anthropological your reading of the fall is, you might regard pacifism unnecessary and uncalled for if we cannot point to a prelapsarian human existence that was devoid of everything we might call violence.
Am I warm?
11 months ago
11 months ago
I'm afraid you are cold.
With regards to human origins/human society my view on pacifism is that is a becoming process both individually and societally. At this point in history I feel that complete pacifism is not possible for a good majority of Christians, let alone non-Christians. But that is not to say that we shouldn't strive to find non-violent solutions to our problems. The more we seek, the more we will find. However, when push comes to shove, I think God gives grace for the not-there-yet. That he tolerates immature ways because he has other things for us to work on. I worry about the lack of 'no exceptions' in the philosophy of pacifists because I think it puts too much of a guilt burden on those who are not mature enough to manage difficult circumstances in a non-violent way.
In my experience as a parent I found that if I wanted my children to behave kindly towards each other, I needed to manage the circumstances and stresses. It is difficult not to be irritating when you are tired and hungry. It is hard not to lash out at someone weaker on you, if you have been picked on. It might be relatively easy for someone who has been brought up in a safe, secure, and loving environment to be able to handle occasional difficult circumstances. But there are a lot of people in this world who have been traumatized, abused, and/or neglected. I imagine it takes them a lot more work not to react to things that trigger their deepest fears and wounds.
I see the 'no exceptions' philosophy particularly troublesome with respect to government. I want to see good Christian people in government. I would prefer if those Christians in government were seeking to be peacemakers. But I would hope that their convictions would not hinder them from using violence IF and only IF that violence would prevent greater harm from occurring within the society at large. Wars generally do not qualify.
As peacemakers I think the responsibility is to try and change the circumstances that lead to conflict and war. My guess is that most of JM's readers are actually doing that and I want to applaud all of you for your efforts. Until circumstances are changed, I'm not sure of the value of being reactive to conflict. It seems to me as that just takes energy away from dealing with the conflict's source.
11 months ago
Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
11 months ago
The lens I am using is primarily that of the Church being the body of Christ. When exploring that analogy (and I know that all analogies have their limits), I find it very interesting the way the body stays healthy. Our immune system not only attacks invaders, but cleans up and gets rid of the body's own sick or rouge cells. On top of that there seems to some sort of system in the body which communicates to particular cells that they are no longer needed, and the cells commit suicide. I'm not advocating suicide, but I do find the body's defenses very interesting and suggestive.
In addition, as wonderful as the natural world is, it seems as though humans can play a big role in keeping ecosystems in balance. Humans can understand when and how much to cull the populations of predators and prey such that their populations don't experience extreme swings and become susceptible to extinction through disease. It is to our shame that we are the cause of so many extinctions, when our role is that of protecting species.
If we can bring harmony to the natural world through careful violence, would human society be any different?
11 months ago
Let's just say that despite a spate of similarities (without which we would probably not be part of the same conversation), we have very different worldviews. I'm not sure the harmony-through-careful-violence project is working out so well, on the human or non-human level. But I could be wrong.
11 months ago
What you're describing is the Just War Doctrine, which is intended to limit the use of war/violence to only those situations where its intent and its execution are just. But it doesn't work and never has. Its been used for centuries to make all kinds of military actions licit, but it hasn't ever once prevented a war. Do we really believe that every war every "Christian" nation has ever fought has been just? And yet all were presented as just wars.
11 months ago
I agree that very few wars have been just. I even question the value of defending one's country. However, I have a very active imagination and can conceive of situations that might constitute an exception. And it only takes one exception to invalidate an unequivocal stand. I would rather err on the side of saying there might be exceptions, but let's try and find if there is a non-violent solution to our problem. When we've truly explored all the other options, then I'm willing to say that a particular situation is an exception. But I think most people give up too soon. Trying to find non-violent solutions is a lot of work. And works best if can be planned ahead of time.
11 months ago
Since the time of Christ there have been victories in war which have brought
glory to God.
Maybe, but each of those victories, particularly the victory & conversion of Constantine, have lead to other circumstances which were not particularly glorifying to God. For instance, if the Roman empire had not formally adopted Christianity, then the entire political landscape of Europe would have been different. No Crusades, no Inquisition, no Great Schism. I don't know whether we can truly say whether such things were glorifying to God this side of heaven.
And it only takes one exception to invalidate an unequivocal stand.
It only takes one exception to invalidate a philosophically based unequivocal stand, I'll agree. However, there is no exception to a Christological and eschatological stand because they speak to the entirety of the human condition and not specific situations.
Aside from that, you are exactly the type of non-pacifist I would like to see in government. :)
11 months ago
11 months ago
In other words, the fact that I die, or the toddler dies, or X occurs is not relevant to the action? The theorist in me loves the neatness of that, but like Wes Hunter describes the implications of that can be concerning.
11 months ago
I agree with "the theorist in you". I agree much more with deontology than with utilitarianism
11 months ago
As for the larger question of how I came to Pacifism:
I came to relative pacifism through economics. I already had a living faith in Christ, and had spent several years as a missionary to the inner city when exposed to the Austrian School of Economics, and one Murray Rothbard. He deftly demonstrates how a society which begins with a principle of no aggression can function smoothly and properously.
But I had also been exposed to Stanley Hauerwas. I snuck in to his Christian Ethics course at Duke University for a semester. I wasn't enrolled or anything, I just shuffled in with the other students, like Joe Pesci in "With Honors." I read "Resident Aliens," and selections from "The Hauerwas Reader." I read Yoder's "Politics of Jesus." I decided to go back to school.
But I went back to Rothbard, and then, inevitably, to Ayn Rand. Rand taught me that many peole are leaches. They want to impose a claim on the lives of others in order to get away with their own mediocrity. While her egoism was distasteful to me, her indictments against those who wanted the government to force charity from the productive in order to sustain the weak resounded. Also, her understanding of unregenerate human nature is spot on.
In Rand's world the weakest and the least of these would simply die off. She had no compassion for them, and inhumanely swept aside empathy and affection. Just so. If there is no God, and if each of us exists primarily for ourselves, then why should any of us give a damn about those who can only be a drain on society? Many who do care about the poor and weak among us do so irrationally, inconsistently, and most frequently out of a sense of guilt. They intend to cleanse their consciences, and their souls, through good works. Which is fine, if it is your preference, but it crosses a line when that preference is imposed on others against their will.
Which brings me back to Hauerwas. Because if we as Christians are regenerate, then our very natures have been changed. With God in us, we become rationally altruistic. We have a good reason to love and care about others - because Jesus first loved me! But such a realization must acknowledge the costliness of the grace afforded to us (Bonhoeffer). Our ability to care now also requires us to care. We are super-men. We have a responsibility to the least of these to care for them. And only Christians have this ability. So we must never impose any responsibility for caring for the least of these on unbelievers. Thus no form of charity can ever be enforced or even organized through the state.
The state is very limited in its usefulness. The most I can find a purpose for, and Biblical support for, is a judiciary which practices discovery of the natural law through common law proceedures. The logical results of a common law system are consistent with the unregenerate nature of most people.
Finally, we must define the least of these rather narrowly. The least of these are only those who have no potential for doing for themselves. I have callously innoculated myself against concern for income inequality. Working in the inner city for many years taught me that many are just takers, but a few are truely in need. The takers are the primary barrier to getting help to the needy. And the government isn't any help at all when it comes to the very least of these. They are unable to access the programs the state provides. The vast majority of programs the state creates to help the poor end up serving the middle class.
So, a combined belief in voluntary mechanisms among peaceful individuals (otherwise known as the market), and an ethical stance which states that Christians alone are responsible for the least of these, makes me an Anarcho-Capitalist Objectivist Anabaptist Christian. I find most other perspectives cowardly, mediocre, or inconsistent in one way or another.
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
One could just as easily ask "what do we do with the psalms when they say we should hate our enemies and dash babies against rocks?" These sorts of questions haunt the most faithful of people. :)
11 months ago
11 months ago
but honestly I've only started thinking about this very very recently, so I could be overlooking something and I'm still examining my own position.
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
And does verbal violence fall into the same category as physical violence? I seem to recall Jesus calling his enemies some pretty nasty things, not to mention he cursed a fig tree, and expressed physical violence towards the animals and property in the temple. Those don't seem to be your typical pacifistic behaviors.
It is not clear to me where pacifism draws the line.
11 months ago
Being subject to something doesn't mean we live always on its terms. I accept that sickness happens, but this is the age of healing, too (crap I think I just tipped my charismatic cards!). It's the age of new life and new possibilities. And if it's the age of shalom, then the church as a microcosm of that future is to somehow embody that. Which leads me to my next post in this series... ;)
Verbal violence -- Calling Herod a fox seems to me to be different from calling him, say, an a**hole. Seems to have carried a political entendre that his contemporaries would have gotten as a smart pun, maybe like calling a Democrat a jackass or a Republican Dumbo. This doesn't dismiss your point, but it might beg for some refinement of it.
Fig tree -- one tree withered to make a broader point about Jerusalem continuing on the path of nationalistic violence. It's not too different from holding a wooden picket to make a broader point about America continuing on the path of nationalistic violence, is it? This isn't "the end justifies the means", but it is certainly a case where we can say, "You know, for what it's worth, it's not like he was having a crappy day and decided to curse some damn tree for the heck of it."
Temple-cleansing -- probably your best bet for a tougher case. If "nonagressive" is your definition of pacifism, then the pacifist has certainly lost!
So, perhaps we need to stare not at words like "nonviolent", which are so full of linguistic limits, and besides are words which Jesus never used, and instead stare intently at what enemy-love is, how Jesus embodies it. If we gawk only at lines not to be crossed, we'll always trip over them, or at least find ourselves becoming obsessive line-watchers. If we gawk at Jesus, though, instead of the lines, then we get love, peace, grace, and all that jazz -- and the lines thrown in! :)
11 months ago
Fig tree - I am having a hard time stretching my imagination around the similarities between causing a tree to die and carrying a sign that expresses one's opinions. The later causes no harm to anyone or anything. And Jesus certainly did express his opinions to lots of people, why would he have needed to kill a tree?
I look forward to reading more of your thoughts in future posts. And I agree that it's better to look at Jesus than the lines. In my struggles with all of this sometimes I wonder if violence or at least death isn't more merciful at times.
11 months ago
11 months ago
http://destroyideas.blogspot.com/2008/04/quick-...
11 months ago
11 months ago
anyway, I look forward to your future posts. Since I've begun adopting an eschatological mentality when I read the Bible and I've really felt a new sense of coherence and passion that I never felt before. There are just so many verse and issues brought up in the NT that didn't make any sense to me before... for examples, what it means to be "salt and light," how Christ fulfills the OT, the issue of heaven and the new earth/resurrection of the dead, what the kingdom is (and how it is among us), how the "cross is foolishness" to this world, how Christians are "slaves to righteousness" when they still sin, even just what it means to be hoping in things unseen (Romans 8). Anyway, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one thinking these things. I've been feeling pretty weird discussing these issues with the Christians I know...
11 months ago
11 months ago
I began asking all these questions and one day a good friend of mine who had just moved to the area gave me Choosing Against War: A Christian View by John D. Roth.
I was still not entirely convinced, but as I kept reading through scripture everything just seemed to make a lot more sense through a perspective of peace.
So I guess for me the "Jesus said so" category is mine. I think that there are no exceptions to the law. But I'm also against legalism and I'm a big fan of grace.
11 months ago
He recounted some soldiers he knew who had just snapped, but also that almost every self-professed pacifist he knew was merely one murder, rape or traumatic situation away from giving up their cherished beliefs.
But that gives me all the more respective for the few people who have been through war, as a victim or antagonist, and come out of it as a pacifist, for these people know the cost, and choose it anyway.
I suspect for most though, my colleague is correct, and that the word is quick on the tongue but not inculcated in the heart.
11 months ago
11 months ago
I still have heard no answers on either side that I can throw myself 100% behind, except I like being called "Crazy Uncle Randy". Look forward to more of the discussion.
11 months ago
Like many Christians you have gotten your macro and micro mixed up. Let me tell you what I mean. If someone breaks into your house and begin to rape your wife, would you stand aside and tell him, "Since I am a Christian pacifist, I will not only not protect my wife, to be true to Christ's commandment, I am going to turn the other cheek and offer you my daughter too?" I really hope you are a better husband and a father than that since it is your duty to protect your family, or is it? Christ commandment is to you and me as individuals (micro) and not to a whole nation (macro). Let's first deal with the micro and then we can hope for the macro.
11 months ago
Thank you for you passionate response. You do bring up an interesting take on the "what has war solved" question, though I might point out that only one of our number offered up this line of questioning and we might give him the benefit of the doubt in the use of hyperbole. It may be that armed intervention was the only way to stem the slaughter of innocents, and that it is for just such a reason that the state bears the sword. But war has not succeeded in ending violence (which is the standard to which anti-pacifists sometimes hold pacifists) though the interplay of warring factions might, in some cases, help to keep violence in check on the global level.
I'm not sure anyone has suggested that governments themselves embrace pacifism. This has been addressed elsewhere on the site. I'm also not sure what "Obama's wishes" are or what that has to do with this conversation.
I appreciate being schooled on the appropriate response to an intruder. I have to admit I missed the particular command of Jesus that would mandate violent dispatch of rapists, and the scenario presumes a number of things (the primacy of male agency among them, but I'll let that go): that there was no other interventionary alternative, no means of assisting escape, no way to block, restrain, distract, redirect, persuade, or appease the attacker, and yet, somehow, in spite of this, a violent solution is not only available but stands a solid chance of being successful without eliciting an even more violent response from the hypothetical interloper.
As for the micro vs. macro discussion, I admit I'm a bit confused. It would seem from your argument that pacifism at the macro level is entertainable only at the risk of entire people groups and the English language, and is unconscionable at the micro level for fear that wives everywhere will be ravaged in the night. There doesn't seem to a difference, so I'm not sure where the mix-up is.
11 months ago
I don't want to pretend to have an answer to the question of what would have happened if the US had not intervened. To even try to figure it out would be to imagine myself in a position of power I don't wish to have. We are not called to take up the reins of history and try to direct its course. Most of the time things don't happen the way we intend for them to anyway.
But I think if I have to hear that somehow I am supposed to be grateful that I grew up speaking English one more time I'm going to crack! Is it not possible to be a faithful Christian and speak another language and live under a different form of government? And if it is possible, what else matters?
I also do not accept the necessity of believing that the quality of life I enjoy is the direct result of warfare. I believe prosperity happens when God chooses to bless the righteous, though the wicked reap the benefits as well, and just think that it is through their own works of violence that they live in security. They also try and force this lie on everyone else so that they can receive justification for their evil works. But I utterly reject that. The reason my children have a roof over their heads and enough food is because my husband is obedient to his calling to provide for us, but even his ability to do so is God's provision, the blessing of a Father who knows how to give good gifts to his children. And I think the only reason this present fascist government hasn't policed us all into full blown Nazi-ism is because of God's restraint on the hearts of the criminals in Washington. Same goes for the criminals on the street as to why we are not all being raped and pillaged, though I suspect that a good many wouldn't be in such a desperate state if they weren't being trampled down by the status quo.
11 months ago
The war example makes particularly clear, I think, the limits of the "what if?" approach to ethical reasoning. Any gains made by warfare come at the expense of human life, and we would be naive to assume that all involved gave their lives willingly. Neither assuming the responsibility to use force nor abnegating the right to use force answers the question with any kind of certitude or pristine clarity.
One could easily conjure hypothetical situations in which what appears to be a legitimate use of force turns out to have tragic unintended consequences, and I would submit that such scenarios are, in small measure, more realistic than scenarios in which violence is magically the only available and "effective" response over and against fetal-position thumb-sucking while the weak and innocent are molested by the strong. In some ways, all such arguments break down into the "brakeman's dilemma" (a classic ethical exercise in which one must choose between two paths for a runaway train, each resulting in loss of life) -- or a variant of "lifeboat".
Advocacy of a judicious and measured use of force is a viable and defensible position, if one cared to make the argument without reaching for tired hypothetical constructs. The pacifist (just like anyone else) must extrapolate a coherent ethical stand from biblical principles that are sometimes ambiguous. The political and cultural context of Jesus' teachings do not immediately commend themselves to ethical specifics in our own time, so such specifics must be derived -- such derivation, along with the interpretive task to begin with, being subject to the limits of human reasoning. Moreover, the pacifist can only defer for so long an admission that, at some point, pacifism leaves things to God that other perspectives leave open to human response. None of these things have been a deal-breaker for me -- but I recognize their legitimacy.
Having said that, however, neither the advocacy of the measured use of force nor the refusal to use force, should be evaluated on the basis of their inability to answer questions raised by no-win scenarios.
We need different questions.
11 months ago
11 months ago
earlier email.
First, last week Obama said that he is embarrassed to see how many different
languages Europeans who come to the US speak and encouraged us all to learn
how to speak Spanish. My reference to his wish had to do with that comment.
By the way, as one who is fluently bilingual and can get by in several other
languages, after that great chastisement of the American people for being
monolingual, I was rather surprised to find out that the man can only speak
English.
Now that that is out of the way, please allow me to deal with your reply one
segment at a time.
Ted: Thank you for you passionate response. You do bring up an interesting
take on the "what has war solved" question, though I might point out that
only one of our number offered up this line of questioning and we might give
him the benefit of the doubt in the use of hyperbole.
ShahZam: Let's take it one step at the time. You answer my question about
this bumper sticker comment first and we then can move on to your next
points.
Ted:
It may be that armed intervention was the only way to stem the slaughter of
innocents, and that it is for just such a reason that the state bears the
sword. But war has not succeeded in ending violence (which is the standard
to which anti-pacifists sometimes hold pacifists) though the interplay of
warring factions might, in some cases, help to keep violence in check on the
global level.
ShahZam:
So there are times that armed intervention could be the right thing to do,
correct? You say "It may be..." Who decides when that MAY BE?? Would you
participate in it if it is decided that it MAY BE that time?
Ted:
I'm not sure anyone has suggested that governments themselves embrace
pacifism. This has been addressed elsewhere on the site. I'm also not sure
what "Obama's wishes" are or what that has to do with this conversation.
ShahZam:
You did with your bumper sticker slogan. Anyone reading that line knows you
are not talking about me getting into a fight with my neighbor, but you have
a much larger scope in mind--US being in Iraq.
Ted:
I appreciate being schooled on the appropriate response to an intruder.
I have to admit I missed the particular command of Jesus that would mandate
violent dispatch of rapists, and the scenario presumes a number of things
(the primacy of male agency among them, but I'll let that go): that there
was no other interventionary alternative, no means of assisting escape, no
way to block, restrain, distract, redirect, persuade, or appease the
attacker, and yet, somehow, in spite of this, a violent solution is not only
available but stands a solid chance of being successful without eliciting an
even more violent response from the hypothetical interloper
ShahZam:
I know you are being sarcastic and I do appreciate it, I really mean it ;-),
but I have no idea what you are talking about. What I gave you was just an
example. Please take it at the face value and don't add or delete anything
from it. What would you do if "restraining" as you call it, had to do with
you having to use a baseball bat since the intruder is twice your size?
Ted:
As for the micro vs. macro discussion, I admit I'm a bit confused. It would
seem from your argument that pacifism at the macro level is entertainable
only at the risk of entire people groups and the English language, and is
unconscionable at the micro level for fear that wives everywhere will be
ravaged in the night. There doesn't seem to a difference, so I'm not sure
where the mix-up is.
ShahZam:
To answer this you have to clear something for me. When you say:"What has
war solved?" What war are you talking about? You fighting an intruder or
Hitler gassing innocent Jews and retarded people?
Again, thank you for taking time to communicate with me.
ShahZam
11 months ago
The "bumper sticker slogan" is not mine, so perhaps it was rude of me to intrude on your conversation with someone else. If Nathan had commentary on the Iraq war in mind when he made the comment in question, I missed it, since I assumed he was speaking in more general terms. I'm not sure what your question is regarding this slogan. I addressed the intruder issue because you brought it up.
In Romans 13 (though interpretations vary widely) Paul seems to recognize the right of the state to bear the sword -- to use force, in other words. At the very least, he recognizes this (use of force by the state) as an aspect of life that will not go away. One of the better uses of this force on the part of the state is the protection of the innocent. I don't claim for myself the moral aptitude to discern, in all cases, what qualifies for this, nor would I assume that all such uses of force are equal. Armed conflict often results in the loss of civilian life and the destruction of non-military property, which I believe is called "collateral damage."
I will not take up arms for the state, no matter how noble the purpose might seem. This does not rule out helping the innocent by other means. As a kingdom of priests, we have a different calling and are held to a different standard than the world, until such time as the world is ready for the Kingdom to come in its fullness. If that makes me a coward or invalidates my ethical reasoning, you may feel free to paint me yellow and dismiss anything else I might have to say.
As for the rapist scenario, since the intruder is twice my size, I can use the baseball bat for extra reach to pin his arms to his torso and hang on for dear life while my wife escapes and calls the police. But that probably adds to or deletes from your scenario, which is designed as a trap: if the only way to stop the rapist is through violence, and I say I won't do that, I'm a coward. If I say that, in all likelihood, I'd try to hit a line drive on his face, I'm not really a pacifist and therefore we can reject it as an ethical stance. Since I thought I addressed this with my response to Sara above, I'll be blunt: this is crappy ethical reasoning and an unfair means of discourse.
But, since we seem unable to take the discourse to a different level, I'll concede with a hypothetical scenario of my own:
Let's say an evil seductress breaks into your home with armed thugs in tow. Despite your heroic efforts to slay them all, they effectively restrain you and your wife. The seductress offers you an ultimatum: have sex with her while your wife look on, or the thugs get your wife while you look on. There is no way out of this, no action-hero response that will guarantee a good outcome. You must choose.
Can I use your response to this scenario as a means of evaluating your sexual ethics? I can't. I wouldn't. It's unfair. No ethical position can answer ahead of time every possible scenario, and no ethical position should be rejected on the basis of hypothetical questions specifically designed to expose its fault lines.
Most of us, in certain circumstances, would probably lie. Nobody uses this to suggest that honesty is an unrealistic ethical standard. Most of us, in certain circumstances, would probably steal. Nobody uses this to suggest we abandon "do not steal" as an ethical standard. Nor would any of us suggest that we practice and prepare for stealing just in case we find ourselves in such a situation. Moreover, we don't seem to be concocting hypothetical scenarios to test the commitment of people who say that stealing is wrong. Somehow, however, we feel compelled to protect and cherish violence as a different category of ethical thinking.
Ted
11 months ago
First of all, thank you again for your prompt response.
I very much dislike communicating via emails. Since it has no emotions or
facial expressions attached to it, it is very hard to read between the
lines.
I do apologies and am deeply sorry if I came across as one who was
questioning your courage or integrity. It takes much courage to have the
commitment and passion you have towards pacifism. I admire any man or woman
who has enough Christ in him/her that can turn the other cheek.
Unfortunately, I am not there and, short of any especial grace, I don't know
if I will ever be there. However, I am passionate for justice even if it
means having to use force.
I think we have gone far enough with this discussion. Perhaps our
experiences in life and the lens through which we look at the scripture will
not allow us to agree on this subject, but I hope you will consider me a
friend and a brother in Christ who, much like you, is trying to find what it
means to walk in the WAY.
ShahZam
11 months ago
Your response is both heartening and humbling. You're right that internet discussions tend toward the cerebral and abstract. It's a lot different than talking things out over a couple of beers or a cup of coffee.
Rest assured that I see our differences as simply that: a difference. In all likelihood, for 99% of life, in which we are not fending off would-be rapists or fighting genocide, our approach to the Way is probably not a lot different. I agree that we share a passion for justice, if we might disagree on the means of achieving it.
I would be pleased to consider you a friend and brother in Christ.
Ted
11 months ago
As a way of introducing myself, I will be very honored if you look at my blog and if you get a chance, read the last two postings.
www.Shahshankedredemption.blogspot.com
Shah