The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Are Christians allowed to fight?

Theology Biblical Theology
#12

Let me inject theological answers from Got Questions - a Protestant biblical site and philosophically - by introducing the moral dilemma. Anyone is welcome to respond to either approach.

Moral Dilemmas

The problem with taking absolute positions is that it would open you up to Ethical dilemmas, like those found at Ethical dilemmas 1 or Ethical dilemmas 2.

The first article says,

Wiki in the second article says,

A perfect example is this. Suppose I had a child and suppose someone is running towards them, to kill them with a knife. I have a gun and can shot the killer dead. Should I do nothing and let the child die? Or should I shoot the killer and save the child? Which would it be? Whose life is more important - the killer’s or the child’s?

We could even make the above example more interesting. Suppose the killer was your wife (or husband, if you are female), who has a psychotic problem. She forgot to take her medication today. She is the one coming at your child with a knife, saying she is going to kill them. And you are too weak from a flu virus, to physically stop her. You only have the gun option. What would you do?

How would pacifists resolve this and other ethical dilemmas?

We could even inject some interesting alternatives to the above ethical dilemma. Like:

What if the killer is a Zombie from the Walking Dead?
What if the killer is Mr. Data from Star Trek - the Next Generation?
What if the killer is a clone of your neighbor from Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
What if the killer is the Frankenstein monster?

Do we still face the same moral or ethical dilemma? Unless you have a solid theological and philosophical solution to ethical dilemmas, then you are threading on shaky ground.

Some Moral dilemmas to reflect upon

Let me leave you with some interesting moral dilemmas to reflect upon at:

moral dilemmas to reflect upon
More moral dilemmas to reflect upon
**
Got Questions theological answers to war and Jesus as pacifist
**
Also, Got Questions - a Protestant biblical site - had this answer to:

Was Jesus as Pacifist?
What does the Bible say about war?

#13

Well, briefly for me :wink: , I’m afraid saying things concisely remains more a dream than a reality for me :smiley: TL.DR posts remain my cross to bear (and for others their cross to read if they care bear the pain :wink: :slight_smile:

#14

I looked at the first three paragraphs of “Was Jesus a pacifist?” and was not positively impressed.
The author quotes the following verses in an attempt to show that He was not:

Here the “sharp sword” that comes out of His mouth, clearly is not a physical sword, but the word “sword” is symbolic of His words, which are powerful enough to “strike down nations”, that is, overcome them.

Here again, the sword is figurative. It is the sword of division bewteen those who submit to Jesus and become His disciples, and those who don’t. There will always be conflicts within family groups over this matter.

There is not a single instance in the life of Christ in which He used physical violence. Rather He said, " If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36).

#15

Hi Paidion:

When you mention the sword was figurative, you bring up a point I’ve been reflecting upon. When something in the bible is figurative or literal. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches have a tendency to look at biblical things symbolically - more often than not. And Protestant folks like to take things literally - causing many fights and divisions. Then we can take literalism to an extreme.

An example is the bible verse about picking up serpents and not being harmed. Yet some Pentecostal churches in the rural south do take that literally. And they have snake handling services. Are they taking literalism a bit too far?
Then I thought about the verse that some among you will not see death, until they see the kingdom of God, come in its glory. If the kingdom is not referring to something immediate in Jewish understanding, does that mean there are immortals among us - until the end of time?

I don’t agree with everything Got Questions has to say - after all, they are a Protestant biblical site, seeing things through their own theological lens. But their answers to questions are a good starting point for discussion.

I still think the moral or ethical dilemma I referred to earlier, presents a good stumbling block to absolute pacifism.

#16

Where push comes to shove Paul gives some useful instruction along these lines… “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath.” – Jesus we know in a fit of rage, for sake of more mild terminology, fully upended a lot of money changers’ tables. And… “*IF it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.*” – sometimes for various reasons such is not so easy.

#17

Ethical or moral dilemmas can be even be situations where nothing drastic will happen. There’s a popular Pentecostal Chicago preacher on local access TV. His wife is always shown on TV - in the audience - wearing awful hats. She once had one on that looked exactly like a flower pot - full of flowers. It was the ugliest hat you ever saw. Imagine you are friends with the TV reverend and his wife. Then the wife asks you, “how do you like my new hat?” You can tell her it’s awful and hurt her feelings. Or you can say it is great and lie. Or you can say something like, “this hat brings out the real you” or “It’s nice that the flowers are the same color as your hair.” How would you answer her?

#18

How would you answer her?

I might say, “My dear your hat is not of this world” :wink:

#19

[size=130]Two thoughts on this, Sven:

  1. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Eph. 6:12.

  2. A quote from Richard Murray, on greater and lesser evil, taken from his article, “What Is The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil?”:

[size=85](Complete article at facebook.com/goodnessgod/po … 2459810791)[/size][/size]

[size=130]Blessings.
[/size]

#20

Steve, you ask if I personally would do violence to an attacker of my loved ones. I suspect yes, since I see violent inclinations in myself (especially toward ones who threaten what matters most to me) that are quite opposed to the approach Jesus urged. So, yes, my outlook makes me question the view that being violent toward others is never God’s will and thus not justified for us who follow in Jesus’ way. Yet, since the posted question was what the Bible (& Jesus!) taught on this, I argued that Jesus consistently pushed against what I am inclined to feel is appropriate. If honestly you “don’t disagree” with my argument that Jesus consistently “opposed us using physical violence upon evil human beings,” then it appears that we both have a tension between what we are inclined to justify, and what Jesus modeled and taught. I’d hesitate to just ignore his view.

#21

First, we DO NOT know how a violent person is going to react to non-violence. We can read a Tolstoi story in which an army wished to take over a town, and none of the town people resisted. Many gave the army what they needed. The army commander didn’t find it much “fun” trying to make war with people who wouldn’t fight, and so finally they stopped trying to fight with them, and left.

Nicki Kruz threatened to kill David Wilkerson when David was witnessing to him. David neither backed down nor showed any fear. But he didn’t try to fight Nicki or resist him. Nicki broke down and became a Christian, and later an evangelist. I was privileged to attend one of his campaigns. It was VERY powerful. Hundreds were converted, and then counselled in every hallway in the building.

Then in my area, there was a powerful man of God, an older man, who was with the Christian Shantyman’s Accociation. He walked dozens of miles into bush camps to reach men who were never reached with the gospel. They kicked out every other preacher, but when Brother Winslow came along, they all gathered to hear him. One day when Mr. Winslow was visiting a man in the top story of an apartment building and urged him to entrust himself to Christ, the man threatened to hurl him downstairs. Brother Winslow kept urging, and then suddenly the man dropped to his knees, and poured his heart out to the Lord.

What would have happened (or perhaps I should ask, “What WOULDN’T have happened?” in the above cases if the potentially violent man had been resisted?

#22

First, we DO NOT know how a violent person is going to react to non-violence. We can read a Tolstoi story in which an army wished to take over a town, and none of the town people resisted. Many gave the army what they needed. The army commander didn’t find it much “fun” trying to make war with people who wouldn’t fight, and so finally they stopped trying to fight with them, and left.

That’s a nice story but non-violence didn’t impress Hitler much. The Jews were generally non-violent, so were the JWs, so were the gays,so were the disabled folks, so were the gypsies, so were other undesirables, yet it didn’t impress Hitler and i suspect it wouldn’t impress ISIS much either. Evil isn’t impressed by goodness, not in this present evil age.

I agree Jesus advocated pacifism but i don’t see an example where he encouraged sacrificing one’s loved ones to evil. It’s one thing if you choose to sacrifice your own life, but i don’t think we have the right to choose to sacrifice others.

#23

I thought of this. Sometimes there’s not enough information in the Bible, to make a solid case either way. And we also get into the problem of when to interpret something figuratively or literally. This can be the topic of a debate - in and of itself. And some groups - like the Quakers - rely more on the inner light than biblical verses. As the old saying goes (i.e. re-adapted from Jewish lore), if you get three theologians in a room (i.e. regardless if they are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant), you might have five different opinions. The martial arts - if taught from old traditions - has a great philosophy behind it. They don’t go out looking for fights. Hence, Pacifism is a good quality to mimic. But the marshal artist (i.e. a good one), would be well trained to respond to any reasonable, philosophical ethical or moral dilemma imposed. Hence, live for peace, but if war or battle is needed - respond. But there’s always the Conscientious objector route available - to those who object.

#24

I am next door to being a pacifist, but only next door:

  1. If a government/country/state goes to war, one can be almost certain (way over 99%) that it is an unjust war. Given that, plus the lamentable human propensity to tribalism (i. e., my country is always the “good guys” in wars), it is probably best for people to opt out of any war. Avoid it as much as possible. Go to jail rather than take-up arms in an unjust war.

  2. If one or more people physically attacked myself, my loved ones, or innocent people in my immediate vicinity, then I would not hesitate to use physical violence to protect the innocent if that were the best course of action.

In other words, the danger has to be clear and immediate. I would never don a uniform and arms and march off to battle other men in different uniforms simply because “they are the bad guys, and we are the good guys”.

#25

You know, sometimes it’s interesting to see what others outside this forum, say on these matters. Earlier I introduced the responses from Got Questions . There’s another site called CARM, who tries to answer this question at Should a Christian go to war? I like these points from the article, which I shall quote.

This quote

is interesting to me. I’ve used a similar argument in the past against groups that dismiss secular healing. This can be anything from Christian Science to a Christian grief group, that dismisses any secular counseling and help. Or whether depression should only be treated by Christian biblical direction, instead of in conjunction with, secular counseling and medical medications. My response to them was:

" I personally believe a person should avail themselves to the best that conventional medicine, alternative or complementary medicine, and spiritual healing and prayer - working hand in hand - have to offer.

It should be noted that I’m not always in accord with what CARM and Got Questions always says biblically, but they do provide some good starting points for discussion.

So I guess the original question is "

" The answer would be yes. But we should then follow up with a second question:

The answer is no and should be left up to the individual Christian and his Conscience - whether guided by the inner light of Quakerism, their understanding of Biblical directives, church teaching and affiliation, or reflections on the Just War criterion. But whatever the choice made:

The Christian will have to deal with any secular repercussions from any decision, other than conscientious objection.
The moral or ethical dilemma might be something a person could be confronted with.

#26

On the same page with Geoffrey here – violence at the hands of the state is something I have come to see as usually causing many more problems than it purports to solve, and in that sense the ‘pacifist’/anti-war position is my default these days. War fever, emotions and passions sweeping people into modes of dehumanizing the ‘other’ and brushing aside careless killing as ‘collateral damage’ is way too common, even (sometimes especially) among Christians who are supposed to have a heart of Love for their enemies, per Christ. The Scriptures mention those who hasten to shed blood in a very negative light (Prov. 1:16, etc.). It is the peacemaker whom Christ declares blessed – not those who are constantly looking to violence as the ‘solution’ to things, whether on the global level or the local level.

Having said that, I don’t see any particular reason to think Christ was against us as individuals or as communities of individuals using any physical restraint at all to stop those who would hurt or kill others or themselves. If Christ was for His disciples carrying swords at all, He was for at least the appearance of a threat of violence to those that might harm them; and to threaten violence even in a passive, deterrent kind of way is morally akin to actually engaging in it, if necessary. At least that’s how I currently see it. :slight_smile:

One side note, though – I am beginning to wonder whether the passages discussing Christ’s use of the whip in the moneychangers episode might not really mean that He was using it to drive their animals (sheep, cattle, etc.) out of the Court of the Gentiles – not actually using it or threatening to use it on the people, themselves. The language there seems to perhaps warrant that reading of it, despite the usual picture we might have in our heads. Maybe?

#27

My understanding of Christ’s “whip” was that it was more of a sort of broom that people used to drive livestock. He was using this common tool to shoo out the livestock.

My understanding of the “swords” of the Apostles is that they were not the sort of swords that the Roman military might use, but that they were the sort of weapons all kinds of people carried about, perhaps with an 18" long blade. Why? Because when people would make a journey, they might be accosted by wild animals or by bandits. It you were unarmed, what could you do? Call the police? Obviously not. You had to carry your protection with you. Therefore these swords had nothing to do with the military and everything to do with personal protection against clear and present attacks against you or your loved ones.

:slight_smile:

#28

As I was browsing through the web, I came across a Christian site called Answering Islam. One author created a summary section of an article about Jesus, Pacifism, and the Sword, which I am linking to the summary section. At the bottom are links to all eight parts. I can’t say I would agree with everything or even that I’ve read it all. I just thought it might be an interesting read.

#29

I do not find such arguments (if indeed they can be called such) as some soldiers
approaching John the Baptist and not being told to leave their profession persuasive at all.
This is essentially an argument from silence; baseless speculation on John the Baptist’s opinions regarding violence and conflict grounded not on what he said, but what he did not say.

I have heard similar arguments regarding Jesus’ encounter with the centurion.
Since Jesus healed the centurion’s servant and said nothing untoward to the man regarding his chosen profession, clearly Jesus passed a carte blanche on war, violence, etc.
But this is absurd. We might as well make an argument that Jesus condones slavery since
he said nothing to the centurion about having a servant to begin with.
Arguments from silence are never persuasive.

Once again there is a large and convincing body of evidence to strongly indicate that the for at least the first three centuries, the immediate inheritors of the Christian discipline refused violence.
I don’t see how Christians can take this for granted, regardless of whether or not they find themselves in perfect agreement with doctrinal positions held by these early Christian fathers.
It’s hard to try and rationalize away such injunctions as:
“Do not resist an evil person” - Matt 5:39
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil” - Rom 12:17

Now, all that being said, how would I react if I were the victim of a home invasion, and my wife
were about to be violently murdered; perhaps raped or tortured in front of my eyes.
I think it would be terribly dishonest of me to claim I would act with perfect grace.
I don’t believe that such violence always allows for a bloodless response.
Ultimately I would have to defend my wife’s life as nonviolently as possible (knowing
in my heart that in the heat of self-defense, situations tend to spiral rapidly out of control).
All of us would need to fall upon the grace and mercy of a forgiving God in a terrible
predicament such as this.

But this doesn’t change the cold hard facts. Violence begets violence.
Those who live by the sword, do indeed die by it.
Those who attempt to utilize ‘good’ violence in order to prevent ‘bad’ violence, generally
only serve to inevitably extend the self-perpetuating cycle.

#30

Actually, you are right. I found a similar problem with a CARM argument on this forum . The CARM site brought up a similar agrument at The Apocrypha: Is it scripture?:

Then a Catholic writer acknowledges this from CARM and responds in an article at Did the New Testament Quote the Deuterocanon and Does it Even Matter?
An Orthodox Writer talks about the logical fallacies in Myth 2 at Protestant Myths About the Deuterocanonical Old Testament.
I argued that a standpoint of pure probability and statistical randomness would explain everything, with a dab of psychological influence thrown in.

I was wondering when someone would spot the CARM fallacy here!

Since I grew up in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, I was wondering what they said on the topic

Perhaps this best sums up the topic here. They don’t take a clear-cut position on either side. I added the underlining in the answer, as I felt it was important!

I will share a couple statements from my Eastern Orthodox friends - part 1 and friends - part 2

Again, the underlining is mine!

But those advocating a position of absolute pacifism, the problem is philosophical. The problem with taking absolute positions is that it would open you up to Ethical dilemmas, like those found at Ethical dilemmas 1
or Ethical dilemmas 2.


Or even the Eastern Orthodox situation:

Let me leave you again with some interesting moral dilemmas to reflect upon at:

moral dilemmas to reflect upon
More moral dilemmas to reflect upon

  • St. Francis de Sales
#31

I have struggled for decades with this moral dilemma: Jesus’ commands not to resist evil people versus the moral obligation to save lives from a potential killer. I think your post on the topic is the best I have ever encountered. Thank you!