Christian Peacemakers

soundss interesting. I havent time to read the article, but from what I understand, it's inaccurate to call what the peacemakers do "pacifism."

So where in the bible does christ say "kill people and break things" ?
Wonder if Cosh has ever seen the battlefield? Strikes me as afraid of the simple truths freely available to anyone who cares to read Isaiah 2, or Mathew 5 or even Romans 12.
best regards

who knew I was a member of a "hard-headed Protestant sect?"

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." -Matthew 10:34

That's totally out of context

Ari, it's lazy and unhelpful to counter a statement which establishes at least a prima facie case for Jesus' advocacy of violence with nothing more than a conclusory denial. If you're not going to attempt to explain how the context alters the apparent meaning of the quotation, you might as well not have commented at all.

I tend to agree with the interpretation which sees the "sword" as being metaphorical, a reference to the conflict which will necessarily be provoked by Christ's radical impact on the established religious beliefs of his time. But at the very least the verse indicates that the kind of loony pacifism advocated by the CP, in which one panders to extremist violence and shrinks away from all conflict, attempting to drown evil in a flood of saccharine "love" and "forgiveness," is no more symptomatic of true Christian faith than is the vigilante violence of abortion clinic bombers.

I don’t think an explanation was necessary at all.
But, if it’s desired….

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Enough said?

Despite agreeing with your overall position Ari, I fail to see how your citation is "enough said". Frankly, and don't take this as patronizing because I intend it as sharply as it read: I would have thought someone with your concern for thoughtful engagement over and against trite glib traditional Christian answers could and can do far better.

You may have given the verses context but you provided no argument to the effect that Cosh's use of the verse was a misrepresentation of the meaning of the verse due to the meaning (and subsequently the meaning of the verse itself) of the surrounding passage(s).

All of that aside, I find Cosh's point on "pacifism as an enabler of the most horrendous evils" a fascinating one. Even moreso as I find myself nearing the end of Koba the Dread, which if you haven't read, you should. I don't care how silly it makes me sound, but nearing the end it has me nearly in tears every other page.

Onwards: I'm starting to think that Christian Pacifism, at least in the forms I've seen it argued for from Scripture, differs little in its exegetical method as that of Christian Fundamentalists. They approach the Bible in a totalitarian, systematic, and purely propositional fashion i.e a black and white rule book.

Just like we'd argue that fanatical Christian fundamentalism is inherently a life-denying and ultimately Christ-denying setup, I'd argue the same for Christian pacifism.

To assert that there is a value to human life and that one values it, necessarily implies that the possibility exists for one who does not value it, and it is not contradictory to think that the restraint, even violent, of such persons should occur.

I think the Christian Peacemakers don't fully grasp the depth and consequences of original sin. Evil is very real and has to be opposed in this world. That said, we need to stand by solid just war criteria and not just pull out our guns and shoot "bad" people whenever we feel like it.

For an interesting critique of Christian pacificism, check out this article by Keith Pavlischek in last spring's Journal of Faith and International Affairs.

Maybe it's just me, but it should be noted there is a difference between the CPT and www.hispeace.org. I was just confused at first.

Ok, now to address the whole taking out context thing: the verse stems from Jesus sending out the twelve disciples into exclusively Israel. He warns them of persecution inspite of the truth of Christ's name; he warns them not to fear death or lack of provision; and finally he comes to verse 34. He exegetes the verse further in exposing the fact the sword is not a sword of purposeful violence, but one of division. The verse is not to be taken literal, (although, there are cases of families killing one another over Christianity) but more importantly, the truth of Christ will sever relationships. One example that comes to mind is the case of the Afghan man turned in by his own family to muslim leaders to be put to death. Or the reality can be seen where parents disown there own children for living such a Christ saturated life. That can appear on many levels, more extreme than others.

So that's the context for the verse. It doesn't mean justification for killing in the name of Christ, on the contrary, it means a life of humility (Christ-like) will confuse/seperate even the closest of relationships. It involves the cost of following Christ as verses 38 and 39 state: And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

My father-in-law recently told me he has "reconverted" to pacifism--and then proceed to claim that the natural outworking of that pacificism would require a show of unbelievable and overwhelming force in Darfur. In other words, it is important to realize that pacificism as a political and philosophical position is not necessarily and categorically opposed to the use of force (even as it opposes violence).

And this is the problem I have with the critique of pacifism as it is given in this article--it implicitly denies the possibility of a nonviolent position which is not "moral imbecility." Writing off the obvious short-comings of movements like the Christian Pacifists does not allow consideration of the serious claims they may be making.

I think the best response I've found to this issue, tho I haven't had the time to fully study it out, is in the Christian tradition of Just War, a heritage which has been either completely lost or inappropriately assumed in our thinking on violence today. (Dan Bell (http://dbell.faculty.ltss.edu/) has written on it, as have others). In my understanding, it refuses to either simplistically assume violence as a necessity in an evil world nor idealistically deny any use of force. Christians have been thinking about this since Augustine, and it behoves us to acknowledge that before we run off to paint over _any_ contemporary political position with the glaze of religion.

I would also recommend Jean Bethke Elshtain, a leading Christian ethicist and political philosopher, on the issue of just war. http://eppc.org/publications/pubID.2024/pub_detail.asp

The thorny part of the issue is, of course, whether or not to take Jesus' ethic for the Church as it encounters persecution and apply it to nation-states. That is probably an exegetical mistake.

Having said that, I want to draw the emphasis back to the Church and how she responds to oppressors. I think the exegetical data is -clearly- on the side on non-violence, and the burden of proof is on those who would argue that the Church is allowed to lash out with force rather than allow herself to be crushed by the world and its various geo-political entities.

That isn't being a moral imbecile; that's living under the cross.

Now, whether or not a given country ought to deal with other countries in the same way, that, to me, is a different discussion.

One set of moral principles for christians and another for.....?!
Lets not make excuses for violence, rather lets find reasons we can work for peace. Nations are expressions of its population, not some foriegn entity that rules exempt from humanity.

Few things all around.

Paul:

How does Cosh deny the possibility of a nonviolent position that isn't moral imbecility? He seems to speak very cleary about thoroughgoing pacifism.

Also, Cosh was not writing off their serious claims; in fact he may have been addressing their most serious claim and its outworking in a specific situation (pacifism in Iraq etc.), and how it ends up being close to if not morally bankrupt.

Its a tension I think that we can't escape. Either theirs both good and evil in the world and both matter, and sometimes violence is necessary to sustain one and prevent the other, or we go to one extreme or the other and lose our humanity and become guilty of an even greater evil.

Phil: appreciate your thoughts on the Church, but as you said, its a different discussion than the one at hand.

Josiah:

I don't see the "very clearly" part in the article. Statements like "pacifism serves the interest of the cruelest and most consistent advocates of violence on all sides" and describing those who would actually practice it as "perversely noble," while not explicitly denying it as a possibility, doesn't seem to give it much legitimacy. Unless you were implying that "very clearly, pacifism fails."

As I said, I was talking about the implications of his critique, and the same risk exists even in your thumbnail sketch of the problem: the move to "sometimes violence is necessary" as being unfortunate but unescapable, and those who would try to get around it are running the risk of becoming "guilty of an even greater evil."

Once you arrive at this position, it becomes a simple process of cost/benefits analysis: is this act of violence justifiable for stopping moral evil? If yes, then it is legitimate, and any one who would protest it on the grounds of nonviolence would be morally suspect.

My question: what have you presupposed to get there? A lot of things, but the biggest is the assumption that there are two kinds of violence, moral and immoral, and moral violence is necessary to put a stop to immoral violence. But are these our only choices? What _is_ violence, after all? How do we define it in ethical terms? And what happens when we presuppose that it is morally neutral, a tool for human beings both good and bad?

Do you see my point? I think we oversimplify our ethical reasoning far too quickly and that leads us into cul-de-sacs and we don't even know it. Of course, this situation is then easily maximized by politics, which clouds the issue even further.

Just for reference sake, let's remember what was happening in Thomas Aquinas' world.
Landulph, his father, was Count of Aquino; Theodora, his mother, Countess of Teano. His family was related to the Emperors Henry VI and Frederick II, and to the Kings of Aragon, Castile, and France. 1217 King John dies and civil war breaks out, the french occupy parts of england for a short but bloody time during the civil war. 1228 the sixth crusade takes control of jerusalem. Frederick crowns himself king of jerusalem in the church of the holy sepuchre.1244 the egyptian pasha recaptures jerusalem.1250 the seventh crusade ends in defeat by the caliph turanshah.

The "Just" war doctrine served the selfish gaols of kings and emporers, who but a fool would claim this doctrine for themselves now?

Did I just miss the scripture about bombs and breaking things?

Glen,

Like I said, I haven't had the time to study the argument out thoroughly, so your assessment about the historical origins of just war theory are revealing. However, simply because something served the selfish goals of kings and emporors, does that eliminate the possibility that it can be of any value for us today?

Incidentally, I was under the impression that its origins went even further back to Augustine, but I could be wrong.

One is acting a fool if one adopts a position simply because it is historical. But it is equally foolish to refuse to thoughtfully engage with an argument simply because its history is tainted: our libraries would be pretty small.

No doubt our libraries are shrinking. I suppose that the Visigoths in sacking Rome, and the Vandals likewise in Carthage would not have had any influence. Of course Augustines affinity for Mani in his earlier years might give some explanation to the churches (and I think Augustines) early writings prior to his baptism and latter publishing "confessions"?! Again, I am bemused and a bit ashamed by any "christian" defense of violence and war.
Best regards

Hey folks, let's take it to the Word. This is from a hard-headed Assembly of God person.

Jesus said, "...not to resist an evil person." Matt. 5:39

Jesus said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight,... John 18:36

Jesus said you and I (Christians) are not of this world. "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." John 15:18,19

Jesus also said, "I have given them your Word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

First Jesus tells us not to resist an evil person. Then He tells us if He was of this world His people would fight. Then Jesus tells us we are not of this world. If we are not of this world, what gives us the right to fight?

Finally, Jesus said, "...love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven..." Matthew 5:44,45

Is it easy to follow Matthew 5:44,45? No! The flesh wants to fight. Are we of the flesh, or are we of the Spirit? You choose. Why are we so eager to fight and otherwise defend ourselves? Don't you think God can stop an enemy from doing us harm if He chooses to do so?