Comments on: Coming Clean: A Confession

By: hammerud

hammerud — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:16:13 +0000

I'm in favor of using creative responses to evil. I'm just not against
the use of violence as an absolute commitment. The fact that Peter
carried a sword at all as one who walked with Christ for three years is
worth contemplating. Clearly, Peter didn't get the idea from Jesus that
God's will for His children in this fallen world was an absolute
commitment to never use violence in any circumstance.

By: canucklehead

canucklehead — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:21:27 +0000

Isn't this just the tired, old “I was born left-handed” argument?

By: duhsciple

duhsciple — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:08:00 +0000

Amen, brother. Jesus was grounded in reality! You are absolutely correct in the need to be practical and not just theoretical.

As I read the Sermon on the Mount, I see that Jesus knew the reality of Roman occupation. Jews forced to carry military equipment for soldiers. Jews being back slapped as a way of humiliating them. Jesus offered practical, creative, effective responses that resisted evil without resort to violence.

"2 swords being enough"

*When Peter used one of those swords, Jesus issued a stern rebuke for his use of this sword in John 18:11.

*2 swords were not enough to prevent Jesus from being arrested, tortured, convicted by a kangaroo court, and brutally executed in the most fraudulent capital sentence ever carried out.

*2 swords were enough to fulfill the scripture that Jesus was "numbered among the transgressors"

I hope that I am being practical, realistic, active in resisting evil. If, as you mentioned earlier, you were my neighbor, I would hope that you would find me to be this-- and more. I would hope that you would find me to be a person of grace and generosity.

Of course, I can be a real jerk. I struggle to follow the Way of Jesus. My instinct is to retaliate when attacked. When bullies appear I swing between revenge and fear. Jesus calls me to courageously stand up to bullies. I hope someday to graduate from duh-sciple to being one of his disciples.

Thanks again, for challenging me to be realistic, practical and acknowledging that we are talking about real evil.

Forever live the Crucified and Risen King,

Duh

By: hammerud

hammerud — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:51:16 +0000

Duhsciple -- I respect that you hold strong convictions, and this is
not a big issue to me. I just don't see it that way -- too many
situations where "creativity and imagination," without force, allow
evil to triumph. Fighting violence with violence does not mean that
both sides are on the same plane morally. Violence stemming from evil
that is confronted by violence for protection from evil are not the
same thing. Again, absolute pacifism is nice in theory. Communism was
nice in theory -- its problem was Communists. Pacifism is nice in
theory. The problem is people. Also, just out of curiosity, how do
you explain the statement from Jesus that I quoted "...and he that
hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one?" Luke 22:36
When I evaluate different ideas, I look at them in light of Scripture,
not just based on my own ability to rationalize. As you quoted, God's
"...foolishness is wiser than human wisdom." Based on the Luke quote,
perhaps pacifism falls into the category of "human wisdom." Jesus was
not divorced from reality.

By: duhsciple

duhsciple — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:09:24 +0000

Thanks for the conversation, hammerud. However, I must say that I see things differently.

Christ crucified is the power of God and the wisdom of God. The Way of Christ is foolishness to the world, yet a foolishness that is wiser than human wisdom and a weakness more powerful than any human strength.

Human wisdom seeks to defeat violence with violence, lies with more lies, hatred with more hatred, greed with looking out for Number One, attacks by inflicting greater pain than the original aggressor. This way, which is completely understandable from a "common sense human point of view," actually multiplies evil rather than defeating it. According to my math, evil plus evil equals more evil. Principalities and Powers have structured the world towards a system of increasing violence and greed. They can be defeated only by means of death and resurrection.

And, I must say that I do not equate being a pacifist with being nice or passive. Being a pacifist means standing up to evil doers with creativity and imagination. It means active confrontation. Real pacifists practice a peace that is willing to suffer. As I wrote in an earlier note, I have GREAT respect for soldiers who are willing to lay their lives on the line. They deserve honor. I am advocating for a kind of pacifism that is also willing to suffer and pay the ultimate sacrifice.

And I humbly pray that I will be the kind of pacifist that is a threat to the "powers that be." Not in the sense that the powers need fear violence from me, but that my living would call into question the practice of their living.

Finally, please note that the "what would you do?" questions pose that there are only 2 options- blast the aggressors or be a wimp. I, of course, reject both options and challenge the premise that there are only 2 options.

In the Name of the Crucified, the Ultimate Scandal,

duhsciple

By: hammerud

hammerud — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:35:16 +0000

I appreciate that you would be interested in my thoughts. I read thru
the first reference. Haven't seen the book, but the bottom line in my
thinking is that there is not going to be any beating of "swords into
plowshares" until the Prince of Peace forces it. Notice that it will
be when He "forces it." When He comes the second time, it will not be
as a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief," but as the ruling,
powerful King of Kings and Lord of Lords; a righteous dictator; and
all opposition will be crushed; and, by the way, violently. The
pacifist idea, from what I can tell, has the concept that somehow man
can come, by some sort of consensus, to bring peace into this fallen
world by getting everybody to choose to be pacifist. It ignores
reality. It is one of those things that only makes sense
theoretically. It ignores man's fallen nature -- "in sin did my
mother conceive me." The result of a world filled with people, such
as myself by the way, with fallen natures, is a world which, as Jesus
said on the way to the cross, is characterized by "the power of
darkness;" and darkness does have power -- Satan is the "prince and
power of the air," and "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this
world." That is the reality, and the Bible tells us where it is all
heading all the way to the end. The time when "the lion lays down
with the lamb" isn't going to happen because of man. God is going to
bring it in by force and before that happens things are going to get
really nasty. If a person wants to sit back and be nice (pacifist)
during that period, that's fine, but it isn't going to change things.
I would, however, be happy to live next to a pacifist -- one less
threat for me to worry about.

By: kevin47

kevin47 — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:05:16 +0000

I think Hammerud is getting at the distinction between political pacifism (the norm on this blog) and biblically-based pacifism.

The former lazily evokes Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek when discussing the Iraq war, but offers to concrete ideas as to how non-violence can be consistently applied, since treading into that territory is politically unpopular. The latter is honest in it's call to genuine sacrifice in the name of pacifism, and at least deserves a hearing in the public square.

By: duhsciple

duhsciple — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:16:45 +0000

For one perspective on this often asked question see...

http://salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv7-4.html

for another perspective, read the outstanding book by John Howard Yoder titled "What would you do?"...

I'd be interested in what you think.

Peace not pieces, duh

By: hammerud

hammerud — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:22:05 +0000

Yea, but don't you think that force, and even violence, could be
required? Not all evil is open to being countered without violence.
Your position to me cannot be held in an absolute sense in this sick
world.

By: Eric77

Eric77 — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 04:22:55 +0000

I sometimes find myself asking the same questions; however, pacifism doesn't mean simply letting evil go unchallenged (standing by while an innocent person is harmed). Pacifism means trying to counter that evil, but not with violence. Some of the methods used in the civil rights protests of the 1960s come to mind.

By: scat

scat — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:29:33 +0000

a couple of years ago, I finally confessed to being “almost a pacifist” to a friend of many decades, a twice-a-week-go-to church Christian. The “almost” is because I still sometimes feel the urge to punch someone's lights out when they have been particularly nasty. I was hoping to have some good discussions with my friend, but in fact, this longtime friendship was abruptly terminated a few months later. I'm not sure why, but my friend was very far-right wing and apparently deemed me not Christian enough.
I have been anti-war for a long time. It seemed a foolish way to solve a problem and too often just an excuse for violence. I came to believe that matters of death should be solely the province of God. Humans have done a dismal job of doling out the death penalty in criminal cases. Too many innocents have been executed. War has way to much collateral damage. Even those not killed are often damaged beyond repair. I have come to beleive that by giving ourselves permission to kill sometimes, as in the case of self-defense or portection of the helpless, we have lost the motivation to find better solutions to those situations.
The idea is exemplified by the case a few years ago in Georgia where a man was on a killing spree and was stopped by a young woman whose only weapon was a copy of The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren. She used her wits and stopped the rampage. And all the people had had killed had been armed with guns. If we are going to do away with violence, it will have to start with a decision that violence is not an option.
We live in a world full of endless variations of evil, so we have a very high mountain to climb. The disciples lived in a violent world yet that did not slow them down . They knew they were going to die violent deaths, yet they never resorted to violence. If they had, I don't think Christianity would have survived.
As soon as we decide that it is OK to kill this kind of person, for instance a convicted murderer, we open a door that should remain locked to us. Then we have said it is OK to sort out people according to their worthiness to live. We have set ourselves up as junior dieties. There are ways to protect individuals and society from the anti-social inclinations of some without taking lives. I think God wants us to be smarter than we have been in this regard and it may ultimately be the test of our worthiness.
But we are all imperfect and I'm still an “almost” pacifist because I'd really like to take a swing at the friend who dumped me.

By: hammerud

hammerud — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:38:13 +0000

Are you rigidly pacifist in every possible situation? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that there is evil in this world, and there are evil people who do horrible things. Would you just stand by if you saw an innocent person being harmed? I guess I don't understand if your commitment allows for some wiggle room. I respect your right to an opinion, and the Bible does say on various peripheral issues, “…let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” but it also says in Acts 17:11 that the Bereans “…searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so.” When I, as a Christian, search the Scriptures I find that I personally cannot hold an absolute commitment to pacifism. Recognizing the evil in this world, Jesus in Luke 22:36, said to his disciples just prior to his crucifixion “…and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” We're not to live in unreality in this fallen world. That is not to justify misuse of force, individually or by governments. Anyway, I think your wife is relieved that your problem is pacifism.

By: duhsciple

duhsciple — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:07:55 +0000

I, too, identify as a pacifist.

And... I'm wondering if my credibility would increase if I was willing to train, sacrifice, and suffer as those who do in the military.

Serving in the armed forces is costly. We who are pacifists might be more convincing if we were willing to conduct "non-violent invasions" on behalf of peace and justice.

Don't know if this makes sense.

Duh

By: Eric77

Eric77 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:52:09 +0000

Well, I can definitely tell you that you weren't born a pacifist. If only humans were born that way and had to be taught differently…

By: DavidCramer

DavidCramer — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:31:40 +0000

Yeah, you're right, SisterMarie. Geesh, and I call myself an editor! (Don't tell my boss, please.)

By: Ngchen

Ngchen — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:27:50 +0000

Very clever message. But hey, there is nothing wrong with being a Christian Pacifist, and the position is readily defensible. You have my fullest respect.

By: SisterMarie

SisterMarie — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:55:24 +0000

“Some of my friends and colleagues are already fully appraised…”

I think that you meant “apprised.”

By: letjusticerolldown

letjusticerolldown — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:51:14 +0000

By: DITE

DITE — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:05:59 +0000

Good for you David. Recognition of your problem is the first step toward recovery.

I keed, I keed…Well, kinda.