Posted on 11/02/2022 7:38:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The current war in Ukraine reignites the debate over whether Christians should be pacificists or if they have a responsibility to fight and therefore defend themselves. Christian pacifists consider fighting a betrayal of the message of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, which is deeply rooted in our social morality and remains the ultimate reference of Christian moral judgment. On the other hand, responsibility ethics dictate that the use of force is justified when used in self-defense.
Pacifism versus responsibility – who can rightly refer to Jesus and who is wrong? This question falls short. Paradoxical as it may sound: We need both.
From the perspective of Christian pacificism, God is peace. Since every human being bears the dignity of being created in God’s image, the violent killing of a human being is always a violation of dignity. War is always evil. Christian pacifists are therefore convinced: No violence can be legitimized, not even when we or our families are attacked. Jesus preached peace, not war. The mandate to love our enemies even suggests that we break the spiral of violence by a love of overcoming enmity, following the example of Martin Luther King, Jr.
However, others possess a different perspective. Their view is de-escalation and overcoming enmity only work if the other person does not kill me first. The Sermon on the Mount cannot be the ultimate standard of peace when facing death. From this follows the Christian tradition of just or justified war: the use of force as the last means of defense, which is also legitimate under international law.
In the end, it seems to me that the responsibility position is more plausible. If a Ukrainian soldier kills a Russian soldier, that may not be morally acceptable according to the Sermon on the Mount, but it can be an excusable evil from the point of view of responsibility ethics.
After all, what would happen if Ukraine did not defend itself? An entire nation would be deprived of freedom. Other countries like China might be emboldened to engage in more violence and war (against Hong Kong or Taiwan, for example). Death and oppression would spread further; pacifism would abandon the defenseless to ruin. None of this can be allowed to happen.
On the other hand, resisting and destroying evil powers and tyrants is commanded in Holy Scripture. 1 John 3:8 says we must destroy the devil’s work, while 1 Peter 5:9 commands us to resist and stand firm against our enemy. In the Catholic Church, this position is made subject to strict conditions: The damage done to the nation or the community of nations by the aggressor must be certain, serious, and lasting. All other means of putting an end to the harm must have proved impracticable or ineffective. There must be a serious prospect of success. The use of arms must not bring damage and turmoil worse than the evil to be eliminated.
Martin Luther does not advocate pacifism either. In his writings, he justifies violent self-defense to protect the weak as a duty and commandment of charity.
Today, there are also strong pacifist voices against this, such as those of the former German EKD Council President and Bishop Margot Kässmann. Their counterargument is: With what justification is one’s own life to be valued more highly in a situation of self-defense than the life of the aggressor? Here it is life against life.
The moral justification for this lies in an asymmetry: The aggressor attacks a fundamental human good that must be protected. The attacked, who legitimately possesses a fundamental good, must have the capacity to repel an unjustified attack. For example, the Allies were justified in attacking Nazi Germany.
Christians do not have a pacifist mentality. But at the same time, Christianity needs pacifism as a critical mirror before justifying violence.
Dr. Elmar Nass is chair of Christian Social Sciences and Social Dialogue at Cologne University of Catholic Theology, and is the author of the new book: Christian Social Ethics.
Gd clearly loved David, who killed A WHOLE BUNCH of people. They only fell out after David betrayed a friend.
This doesn’t make me feel that killing is okay, but that Gd’s plans for us and what he wants/expects from us are quite hard to understand. Abraham - also - lured his son up onto the mountainside, built a fire, and started sharping up the blade, etc., without question. Gd got angry at the Israelites a couple of times when they refused to attack another nation. So, like I said, it’s good to discuss these things, but next to impossible for us to figure out exactly what we’re supposed to do. It’s like little kids trying to figure out where Dad is and what he’s doing when he goes to the office.
Today it’s much more difficult to try to figure out what Gd wants from us, because there are so many people in our faces who want this, that, and the other thing. (And a lot of people will presume to tell us what Gd wants for us to do and expect for us to obey. I’m sure that was a thing in ancient times as well, but there were also miracles in everybody’s faces, too. So that was persuasive, to see, for example, that plague of locusts descend right on schedule at Moses’s command.)
Samuel’s warning to Israel when they wanted a king was that the king would conscript their sons for his army.
A king/temporal ruler is clearly envisioned, and military defense is part of that. Within bounds, we are instructed to obey the ruler. There is no condemnation of either centurion, by Jesus or Peter, for being the Rome’s army. No instruction that they had to get out.
War is a terrible thing, and does terrible things to soldiers. But, I do not see a clear admonition to pacifism.
There is a difference between killing and murdering.
California, the Penal Code provides this definition of murder:
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Killing on the other hand is:
Penal Code sections 187, 196 and 197) if one of the following conditions is met:
A person kills someone accidentally
A person is trying to defend him or herself and prevent his or her own murder (self-defense)
A person is trying to prevent someone from entering his or her house to commit some violent felony
A person is trying to prevent the murder of someone else (protecting an innocent)
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/
(I would also add that killing in war is not murder as one is defending one’s nation agaisnt being killed themselves)
The Bible lays out the stark differences between the two in many places and makes it clear that killing is not the same as murder.
To bring it into the modern day: what do we do as Christians if the government declares martial law and outlaws Christianity?
Is it ‘run and hide’, or ‘praise the Lord and pass the ammunition’?
[[but next to impossible for us to figure out exactly what we’re supposed to do]]
The Bible is pretty clear about the subject. Noone wants to take another’s life, but sometimes there is no,choice, as in war, home defense, defence of family, or from accident. There is a clear definition and distinction between murder and killing as per the previous post of mine.
Yep. Killing and murdering are two separate things. Jesus said the Roman Centurion had more faith than anyone in Israel. Anyone who knows what it took to become a centurion in the Roman army knows that man had personally killed more people than anyone else Jesus ever met.
The most radical famous pacifist was the author Leo Tolstoy. His pacifism was religiously based and not on any other moral philosophy or principle. He believed it was immoral to submit to the power of governments to force people to fight in wars and the individual must resist this even if it costs his life.
Such beliefs are extreme today but consistent with the Christian belief in the perfection of the soul and the rewards of the afterlife in Heaven. It is better to die at the hands of an evil man then to lose your soul by killing them even in self defense.
“Sell your cloak and buy a sword”
That is a good question. Folks like Daniel, his friends etc obeyed God by continuing to worship him DESPITE the decree not to by the king, but Hey didn’t tske up arms agaisnt the king or his men, and were arrested and the attempt to murder them was given bu the king, who failed. Christians were killed in great numbers by the romans who used them as entertainment in are as where they were boiled a.ive, skinned alive, thrown to wild animals etc.
On the other hand, David’s armies didn’t just roll over and give up,when threatened. They fought back or eve. Took the initiative to get rid of threatening kings in the region themselves.
My brain is too tired to noodle this over now, but jusy wanted to say it’s a good question. And important one.
But if i sell my cloak I won’t be able to tell what time it is. (Boo-hiss- terrible pun)
Here’s a better one “time flies like an arrow, fruit f.ies like a banana”
I struggled with this until I was told that the translated Hebrew to Latin to French/German/English was incorrect. In original form the commandment should be ‘Murder’, not ‘Kill’. This makes more sense.
Rather than get into a theological debate, I submit this:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/does-the-torah-differentiate-between-murder-and-killing
Sorry, no. That is not a Scripturally based position.
Dennis Prager uses the term “moral killing” for war and the “moral lie” for lying to protect others. For example:
(1)
“Where is Mr. Z? I’m going to kill him.”
[Truth]”He’s probably at the cafe down the block right now.”
(2)
[Moral Lie] “He’s attending a conference in Cheyenne, WY. Won’t be back til next week.”
(1) Facilitates a murder even though you didn’t lie.
(2) Hopefully, prevents a murder but you sin by lying (maybe).
RE: The most radical famous pacifist was the author Leo Tolstoy. His pacifism was religiously based and not on any other moral philosophy or principle. He believed it was immoral to submit to the power of governments to force people to fight in wars
And Tolstaoy is RUSSIAN.
I wonder what Putin would do to him had he been alive today...
Me as well. I didn’t learn it till late in Christian ,ife, but it made sense whenit was pointed out to me, and reconciled what I read in the bible about the differences between killing and murdering.
“ Ecclesiastes 3:3 (ESV): a time to kill, and a time to heal;”
Best answer is “I’m not gonna tell you.”
If stoping someone from killing me or my family requires I return his violence with equal force against him, I am morally justified.
Ukraine did not attack Russia, Russia attacked Ukraine. The Ukraine soldier is defending against an invasion and doing all he can to tell the invader to stop and leave. The Ukraine soldier is morally justified. The pooer Russian conscript has been lied into committing a moral wrong derived from the moral error of his leaders.
Just as Israel attacked Egypt in ‘67. For the same reason.
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.