Posted on 10/23/2001 6:54:50 AM PDT by Clive
Suppose a man is walking past a park after dusk when he hears the desperate cries of a woman screaming, "Help, rape." What should he do? Rush to the defence of the victim, of course, and try by all means, violent and non-violent, to stop the attack.
Christian pacifists and their secular counterparts disagree. They reject the use of force to resist evil, even when there is no other means of curtailing the depredations of wickedness.
If a Christian pacifist were to arrive on the scene of a rape, what would he do, counsel the victim to stop pulling the hair of her attacker on the grounds that violence begets violence? Would he remind the desperate woman of Jesus's admonition in the Sermon on the Mount, "Do not resist one who is evil"?
Surely not. Only a lunatic would preach to a victim under attack. Yet Christian pacifists have no compunction about insisting to the rest of us it's sinful and wrong to use any form of violence to stop a rapist or a tyrant such as Hitler.
The great majority of Christian theologians reject this argument and for good reason: The Bible, taken as a whole, makes clear Christians are called upon to use force whenever it is absolutely necessary to prevent evil.
Granted, unlike Mohammed, Jesus did not take up the sword and did not allow his disciples to do so. Yet Jesus did not shrink from using force to achieve justice. He drove merchants from the temple and overturned the tables of corrupt money changers.
When a Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his son, Jesus did not tell the officer to leave the army and take up life as a pacifist. Rather, Jesus marvelled to his followers: "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."
Christian pacifists take literally the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus counselled non-resistance to evil. Yet in this same sermon, Jesus also said: "If any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well." Should this latter statement be taken literally, too?
If not, why not?
In an address entitled, Why I Am Not a Pacifist, given to a pacifist society in Oxford, England, in 1940, C. S. Lewis suggested respect is owing to a Christian pacifist who donates all his belongings to the needy.
Who, though, can admire the inconsistent person, said Lewis, "who takes Our Lord's words a la rigueur when they dispense him from a possible obligation (to use force to defend the innocent) and take them with latitude when they demand that he should become a pauper."
Lewis held that the text on non-violence in the Sermon on the Mount was meant to be taken literally, but only in the context of the everyday frictions among neighbours.
"Insofar as the only relevant factors in the case are an injury to me by my neighbour and a desire on my part to retaliate," said Lewis, "then I hold that Christianity commands the absolute mortification of that desire. But the moment you introduce other factors, the problem is altered. Does anyone suppose that Our Lord's hearers understood Him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?"
Some Christian pacifists maintain violence can never be justifiable, because it's intrinsically evil. What, though, is evil about using force to rescue a woman from a rapist? Theologically orthodox Christians take the sensible view that violence is sometimes an essential means of attaining justice.
In Good Wars, an article in the current issue of First Things, (http:// www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0110/articles/cole.html), Darrel Cole concedes Jesus was a pacifist, but only insofar as pacifism was inherent in his unique role as the redeemer. Cole insists: "No Christian can or should try to act as a redeemer, but all can and should follow Christ in obeying the commands of the Father. And the Father commands the just use of force."
"What does the Lord require of you but to do justice?" proclaimed the prophet Micah. To this end, the Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant, and Count Klaus von Stauffenberg, a Catholic, took part in a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. Rather than condone the evils of Nazism, they resorted to the just use of force.
Alas the plot failed. Like other heroes of the Nazi resistance, Bonhoeffer and von Stauffenberg were arrested and executed by the Gestapo. They died as they had lived, as soldiers of Christ, striving by all means to repel evil and defend the innocent.
Look at the things that divide that we haven't heard about recently. They range for racial profiling, the wealthy, poison from Tommie the commie, to weak George, UN treaties, cutting defense budgets and so on. Yeah, the true Christian pacifist have been around a long time and will continue to be tolerated. The pacists that hide their true intent are the ones that we should **ss on.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
Jesus taught us to love our neighbor. He taught us to especially care for and come to the aid of the most unfortunate people in society, even if it requires risk and sacrifice on our part. That is why we are told to turn the other cheek when we ourselves are being harmed, and to forgive those who have harmed us. But faithfulness to Christ and consistent Christian living also requires us to not turn away, but rather become actively involved in the defense of those who are the innocent victims of violence and aggression.
"Christian Pacifists" claim to hold the high moral ground and to be faithful to Christ's teaching. OK, here is a simple test: If this is the case, then they should be the ones who are first to respond to anyone under attack, and they should always seek to interpose themselves bodilly between attacker and victim to shield and protect the innocent, even though this may put them in great peril.
I would respect anyone who claimed to be a "Christian Pacifist" if they did this, but I have very rarely heard of it ever happening. The COs from the Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker churches who volunteered for medic duty come closest, as they at least put their own lives at risk to try to save the lives of combatants.
But try this little experiment next time you encounter a "pacifist": If they oppose our military action in Afghanistan, ask WHY they have not already traveled over there to talk to the Taliban and Al Qaida people in an effort to persuade them to stop harming innocent people? There is only one TRUE answer, of course: They don't want to risk their own precious rear end. They would rather "turn the other cheek" by turning the other way, ignoring the plight of the future thousands or millions of innocent people who will become victims of the terrorists if not stopped. They would rather protest and criticize in personal safety those who are putting their own personal safety on the line.
And they are cowards, hypocrites, and contemptable scum.
He's just mad that Jesus and Paul were not libertarians. This fact prevents them from using Jesus, Paul, et al, as icons of their religion.
Not what we want, sendtoscott, but what we believe God wants.
That's the difference between libertarians and Christians: one group believes that God is in control of their lives and submit to Him and His appointed instruments of guidance. The other rejects a higher Moral Authority and His instruments, instead following the crooked and slippery path of a subjective morality that changes from moment to moment and depends upon the selfish definition of what they deem as "rights" and "freedom."
I disagree. Paul does tell us to obey rightful authority but also that we are to obey God. If a government is disobeying God then we are not to obey that government.
God Save America (Please)
This is what I said above. In response to your post (which I mostly agree with) Let me rephrase it.
If a government makes a law that would cause us to not obey God then we must not obey that law.
We are to obey God first and then the government. If obeying the gov causes us to disobey God then we cannot obey the gov.
GSA(P)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.