Just war or pacifism? Neither?

I started out as a gung-ho Christian Rightist, but I find myself drifting ever closer towards pacifism.  The degree of nationalism and flag-waving, narcissist American exceptionalism I see in my local church is disturbing.  As Christians, shouldn’t we, like Abraham, be focused on “…the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God”?  Many Christians today seem far more set on defending their turf than in fulfilling the Great Commission.

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, that was in the context of our own cheek being struck. If it is someone else- someone innocent – who is being struck, for us to turn our own cheek means to turn and look the other way. Reading the whole of scripture, I just can’t see that as being what He taught. We are told to have (voluntary) compassion for the widow, orphan, foreigner, and others among us who are most vulnerable. These are usually the people who suffer the most both from the domestic aggression of criminals and the foreign aggression of invaders. We must care about such suffering, and we must be willing to do something about it. But what to do?

The Just War theory is one answer. The problem, of course, is that nations and their leaders and peoples tend not to remain within the very strict confines of Just War theory. Once a war is being waged, it is very, very hard to wage it exclusively on the principle of protecting the innocent from harm, and refraining from harming any innocent people in the process. The moment that line is crossed, then it becomes merely a matter of differing degrees of guilt between the two sides. (And IMHO, those who attempt to stretch Just War theory with various exceptions and justifications that go beyond this hard line are just being plain dishonest – to themselves, to others, and to God.) This suggests to me that if a Christian wants to follow the Just War approach AND remain faithful to Jesus and His way, then they must be willing and ready to disobey orders and accept the consequences the moment they are ordered to take any action that goes beyond the bounds of justified defense. There are not many people who have actually done this, and it does raise a further problem: When one agrees to serve in the armed forces, one is also expected to take an oath that one will obey orders. Jesus had some very explicit things to say about not taking oaths that you are not able and willing to follow though upon entirely. One must therefore be honest with the induction officials up front and make it clear that one cannot provide an unqualified commitment to obey all orders. I doubt very much that this would be acceptable to them. Of course, if one waits until the enemy is at the gates and the situation is desperate, then perhaps that might just work.

Mere pacificism is not an adequate answer by itself, because it leaves the innocent victims helpless. IMHO, if someone is really serious about being a Christian pacifist, then they have to be willing to put their own life and safety on the line by attempting to interpose themselves between the aggressors and their victims, in an attempt to at least shield the victims, and just possibly being able to dissuade the aggressors from harming them. Admittedly, more often than not this would end up being not much more than a suicide mission. However, it is not hard to see such an approach fitting in with the Christian way advocated by Jesus in the gospels.

There are no good or perfect answers, unfortunately, and thus we had better cut each other a good deal of slack as each of us attempts to cope with this difficult issue.

On the other hand, blasting away at civilian populations because their government is not to our liking, or because people not to our government’s liking are hiding within their midst, is pretty clearly not just crossing the line, but going way beyond it. I’m having trouble understanding what possible justification there can be for such activity from a Christian perspective, or for our participation in it. We shouldn’t let the ambiguity of hard cases distract us from the moral clarity of the obvious ones.

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, that was in the context of our own cheek being struck. If it is someone else- someone innocent – who is being struck, for us to turn our own cheek means to turn and look the other way. Reading the whole of scripture, I just can’t see that as being what He taught. We are told to have (voluntary) compassion for the widow, orphan, foreigner, and others among us who are most vulnerable. These are usually the people who suffer the most both from the domestic aggression of criminals and the foreign aggression of invaders. We must care about such suffering, and we must be willing to do something about it. But what to do?

The Just War theory is one answer. The problem, of course, is that nations and their leaders and peoples tend not to remain within the very strict confines of Just War theory. Once a war is being waged, it is very, very hard to wage it exclusively on the principle of protecting the innocent from harm, and refraining from harming any innocent people in the process. The moment that line is crossed, then it becomes merely a matter of differing degrees of guilt between the two sides. (And IMHO, those who attempt to stretch Just War theory with various exceptions and justifications that go beyond this hard line are just being plain dishonest – to themselves, to others, and to God.) This suggests to me that if a Christian wants to follow the Just War approach AND remain faithful to Jesus and His way, then they must be willing and ready to disobey orders and accept the consequences the moment they are ordered to take any action that goes beyond the bounds of justified defense. There are not many people who have actually done this, and it does raise a further problem: When one agrees to serve in the armed forces, one is also expected to take an oath that one will obey orders. Jesus had some very explicit things to say about not taking oaths that you are not able and willing to follow though upon entirely. One must therefore be honest with the induction officials up front and make it clear that one cannot provide an unqualified commitment to obey all orders. I doubt very much that this would be acceptable to them. Of course, if one waits until the enemy is at the gates and the situation is desperate, then perhaps that might just work.

Mere pacificism is not an adequate answer by itself, because it leaves the innocent victims helpless. IMHO, if someone is really serious about being a Christian pacifist, then they have to be willing to put their own life and safety on the line by attempting to interpose themselves between the aggressors and their victims, in an attempt to at least shield the victims, and just possibly being able to dissuade the aggressors from harming them. Admittedly, more often than not this would end up being not much more than a suicide mission. However, it is not hard to see such an approach fitting in with the Christian way advocated by Jesus in the gospels.

There are no good or perfect answers, unfortunately, and thus we had better cut each other a good deal of slack as each of us attempts to cope with this difficult issue.

On the other hand, blasting away at civilian populations because their government is not to our liking, or because people not to our government’s liking are hiding within their midst, is pretty clearly not just crossing the line, but going way beyond it. I’m having trouble understanding what possible justification there can be for such activity from a Christian perspective, or for our participation in it. We shouldn’t let the ambiguity of hard cases distract us from the moral clarity of the obvious ones.

The large number of evangelical churches that wrap the cross in an American flag make me sick!  Generally speaking, we’re way too worried about our temporary homes here and not enough about where we’re going.  As I think about the issue of Tyranny Vs Government, I find 1Sam very intriguing.  The people wanted a king, like all the other Nations.  They wanted to be their own god, like Adam.  We find the theme repeated over and over throughout scripture. Nimrod.  The Tower of Babel.  It struck me reading 1Sam that the people choosing Saul are just like the people in Revelations choosing the Antichrist.  A very popular charismatic person but in the end he enslaves them all.  And I can’t help but see the parallels with the people’s choice in Obama.  The theme is so prevalent in history because the sin of wanting to throw off God’s authority is so rooted in our hearts.  But God chose a king after His own heart (David…Christ).  And in the end (Revelations), God will destroy Babylon.  Until then, how shall we then live? 

Grammar Correction: Are the terms anarchist and libertarian synonymous.

If libertarians are so into individual rights, then they approve a primitive way of life in which we are constantly in a “war of all against all” -Thomas Hobbes- and dont understand at all how a society works and what real freedom means

Bryon…have you read much of Hobbes? If he’s so right that quoting or paraphrasing him is all that is necessary to shrug aside “libertarians” as having no understanding “at all” of how society and freedom work, then please explain how he is right when he says a strong authoritarian central government is necessary to protect real freedom.

social cooperation or trade? really? sounds too naive (No offense)

troll? So if someone disagrees with you then automatically he’s a troll? Even if he talks with facts, history, and valid arguments with precise detail on why he disagrees. Theres no room for debate on this page I see. Then your wish is granted, I wont comment in here anymore. Good day sir!