Welcome

Welcome to LibertarianChristians.com! If you are new here, you may want to see the About Page for a welcome message and more information about the site. Check out the posts on the right and the Top Posts page to get started! Don't forget to subscribe for free with RSS or Email.

Archive for pacifism

imageI have said many times that I am not a pacifist, but that I have genuine respect for those who are. I also believe it is important to understand the arguments for pacifism from a Christian perspective. Today I found out that from now until Sunday you can get the Kindle edition of Christian Pacifism: Fruit of the Narrow Way (30th Anniversary Edition) for free on Amazon.com. I have not read the book yet, but I have heard good things about it, and who can pass up a free book like this?

My friend Aaron Taylor made me aware of this find. He found this description of the book:

Originally published by Friends United Press, copyright 1981, Christian Pacifism: Fruit of the Narrow Way, by Michael [C] Snow [Earlham School of Religion, ‘81], is now in an “ebook” edition.

In the new Preface, the author writes, “May we all continue to seek first His Kingdom… I pray that this new release…will be a help to pilgrims on that path.”

The original book finally came off the press in January of 1982. It was featured as the selection of the month for the Quaker Book Club in March. The cover art, by graphic artist Susanna Combs, was also featured in a poster and on the cover of Quaker Life for the July-August issue of that year.

In the review in The Friend (UK), Eva Pinthus wrote, “There are few Friends, and even fewer books, that can help evangelical Christians to become convinced of the truth of the Friends’ peace testimony…. Thus we welcome Michael Snow’s rather brief but challenging book.”

Though the original book is currently out-of-print, it has remained readily available through online used book vendors. And a WorldCat library search via the internet shows that it is still available at over 50, mostly university and seminary libraries.

I hope you’ll find this book beneficial. Check it out at Amazon.com.

Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Thoughts
Comments (0)

I am a man of peace; but when I speak, they are for war. – Psalm 120:7

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace–but now it is hidden from your eyes.” – Luke 19:41-42

All men desire peace, but very few desire those things that make for peace. – Thomas a Kempis

I recently heard praise among churchgoers for the movie, “Act of Valor”, a movie about Navy SEAL’s funded in large part by the Navy itself. (And, judging by the previews, it’s basically a military recruitment film.)  There is even a Bible study that coincides with the movie and is based on the SEAL code of honor.  I was unexpectedly overcome with grief when a Christian excitedly described this to me at church.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the terrible contrast I had just experienced.  The sermon that very morning was on this verse from the Beatitudes in the book of Matthew:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”

Blessed are the peacemakers.  And yet here Christians had high praise for a code of conduct espoused by an outfit whose entire purpose is to kill ruthlessly and efficiently.  And not merely to kill, but specifically to kill whoever they are commanded to kill by the political powers in the United States without question.  The very first tenet in the SEAL code of conduct is “Loyalty to Country” which means, in practical terms, obeying the orders of your superiors who are supposed to represent “the country”, however ill-defined the term.

Not only does obedience to the first tenet render obedience to any of the rest impossible, it is unfathomable to me how a Christian could find this a suitable basis for a Bible study intended to make men into better Christians.  The first tenet of this code means quite plainly to forsake your own conscience, do not question the morality of your orders, do not seek to understand why you are supposed to be at war with whomever you are told to be at war with, do not investigate whether or not your targets are a genuine threat or deserving of death, but simply pull the trigger.

The Evangelical Church in America today looks very little like a body of Christ followers and more like a body of state and military followers.  American flags grace many a pulpit.  Veterans Day celebrations are common.  Prayers for the success of military ventures are not unheard of.  Calls by politicians and pundits for the use of violence in almost any country for almost any reason will almost always gain the unwavering support of the entire Evangelical community.  Anything – including torture, assassinations, and “collateral damage” – can be excused and even praised if it is done “for the country” and under the stars and stripes.

How did this happen?  Can you imagine Jesus, or Peter or John with Kevlar vests and M-16’s kicking in doors, screaming ,“double-tapping” people in the head before yelling, “All clear!”’ and high-fiving each other?  Can you imagine them dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki?  Can you imagine Jesus instructing his followers to study a code of conduct that begins first and foremost with, “Be loyal to the Roman government”?

Not only did Christ and the giants of the Christian faith refuse to aggress against others, no matter how sinful or evil, they even refused to use violence in self-defense and instead chose martyrdom.  When Peter tried to defend Jesus with the sword by cutting off the ear of a soldier, Jesus rebuked him and healed the man’s ear.

Jesus did not instruct the disciples to go to the wilderness and train for a few months so they could plan a stealth nighttime assassination of the guards who crucified Him or any who opposed the Way.  He told them to forgive.  To Baptize.  To turn the other cheek.  To submit even to death for the sake of the gospel, rather than resort to violence.  That is a radical message and they lived it.

And yet the Church finds herself cheering for the military and honoring them without questioning what they are doing, who they are killing, why they are doing it, or if it’s right.  Worship of America and the myth of its righteousness have taken the place of any sense of individual moral responsibility on the part of soldiers or those who support them.

I left church with an immense weight on my soul.  I wept.  I wept because I knew exactly the sentiment expressed by most of the churchgoers that morning.  I used to share it.  I wept as I remembered my bloodlust after 9/11.  I wanted the United States military to kill people.  I wanted bombs to drop and guns to fire.  I wanted somebody to get it, good and hard.  I wanted death.  I wanted war.  I did not want peace.  I felt no love, only hate.

This impulse is the most human of all impulses.  It is also the very impulse Christ taught us to overcome and demonstrated how to do so by His own example.  Even when others hate, love.

I wept as I saw in my minds eye the blood on the hands of nearly every Christian in this country.  How many self-proclaimed followers of Christ have cheered on “the boys in uniform” during every conflict we’ve ever had, including wars of aggression, just because they’re “our countrymen” fighting for “our side”?

What are “the things that make for peace”?  The belief that right and wrong trump nationality and patriotism.  The belief that killing is only ever permissible as a last resort and in self-defense.  An understanding that Congressional or Presidential approval of an action does not make it moral.  That obeying orders is not a virtue unless the orders are virtuous, in which case they should be obeyed because they are right, not because they are orders.  That voluntarily agreeing to kill whomever you are told to kill is not honorable.  That love is better than vengeance.

Before you support any military action, conduct a brief mental experiment: imagine not the US Military, but you as an individual embarking on the mission in question.  In the end it is only individuals who can act and bear moral responsibility for their actions.  Imagine standing before God and saying, “I was only following orders”.

How many churches cheered for war against Iraq?  Yet can you imagine a pastor standing before his church and saying, “For the next six months we are all going to train in explosives and guns, and we are taking a church trip to Iraq to kill bad people and make the world a safer place.”  Who would support it?  In moral terms, it is no different to support taking money from taxpayers to pay soldiers to do the same.  In fact, the latter is in some ways more nefarious and less honest.

Most would argue that there is a difference between unjust violence and just violence – indeed there is.  Some argue there is a difference between just war and unjust war – perhaps there is.  But never in my years of observing church support for state military action have I witnessed a single discussion of whether the action was just or right.  There have been a few discussions of whether it was “Constitutional”, but never whether it was moral.  The morality of war is assumed by the mere fact that the war is waged by the United States Government.

Until the Church in America stops blindly supporting violence done in the name of patriotism, our hands are bloody and our witness is tainted.  We say we are for peace, but we want war.  We say we pray to the Prince of Peace, but we ask him to bless the violence committed by soldiers.  We say “the law is written on our hearts” yet we ignore our hearts and only follow the laws of governments and call what they call right good, and what they call wrong bad.

In our ignorance, we support violence.  We can cry out, “Father forgive us, for we know not what we do.”  But after our eyes our opened and we begin to examine the morality of acts of violence, we will be held accountable for what we know.  I pray we will be willing to oppose violence, even when doing so makes us “unpatriotic” or “un-American”; even when doing so may lead to our own persecution.

“He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God himself” — C. S. Lewis.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Articles
Comments (11)

For the time being, I’m going to be continuing “Q&A Week” until I have caught up with all of the FAQ submissions… Dave asks:

For a libertarian Christian, is there such a thing as a just war, or are all libertarian Christians pacifists?

This is a terribly difficult question to answer. In sum, I do not believe that being a pacifist is a requirement for a Christian libertarian, but being anti-war is mandatory.

Proper wars – military conflicts – are almost always begun by states, between states. Other instances of wars, such as the Revolutionary War, are few in history. Since the Christian libertarian’s understanding of the state is that it is founded in rebellion against God and is evil in nature, we also understand that its reasons for executing violence against others must also be impure, vile, and evil. We must assume until proven otherwise that any war is unjust. (Even the Revolutionary War’s necessity is debatable, honestly.)

Just war theory, as proposed by Augustine first and many others following him, seeks to limit the state’s justifications for going to war, but there is a downside with the theory as well. Robert Brimlow has addressed this in his book What About Hitler?, and Laurence Vance had this to say in his review of Brimlow’s work:

Brimlow then demolishes the finer points of just war theory itself, even taking on the theologian Thomas Aquinas. The author considers just war theory, "as developed and defended both by church theologians and secular philosophers," untenable, and for three reasons:

  • Just war theory is untenable because it is difficult to know with sufficient confidence whether all of its conditions have been met.
  • Just war theory is untenable because some of its tenets are impossible to realize.
  • Just war theory is untenable because it used to justify rather than to prevent war.

Go to Laurence’s full article for even more elaboration. I find it compelling. Just war theory has been used to justify terrible wars, including every American intervention/war of the 20th and 21st century. Why, then, would I want to adopt it?

Again, I do not think pacifism is the ultimate answer, but I think Leo Tolstoy, Stanley Hauerwas, John Yoder, and Dietrich Bonheoffer make strong cases for it. Here at LCC, Doug Douma has made persuasive arguments as well. On the other side, I don’t think we can claim that Jesus saying “turn the other cheek” completely excludes all forms of self-defense (see my exegesis of Matthew 5). Who knows, perhaps I will be convinced of pacifism someday, I don’t claim to have this nailed down yet. Currently, I think understanding the use of force through a careful viewing of natural law and ethics reveals the appropriateness of basic self-defense to protect one’s life, family, and property. But, you had darned well better be sure if you ever, ever raise your hand against another person.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Articles
Comments (19)

Running on the coat-tails of yesterday’s post, here is an excerpt I found particularly interesting in The Kingdom of God is Within You. Make of it what you will…

“Some persons maintain that freedom from violence, or at least a great diminution of it may be gained by the oppressed forcibly overturning the oppressive government and replacing it by a new one under which such violence and oppression will be unnecessary, but they deceive themselves and others, and their efforts do not better the position of the oppressed, but only make it worse. Their conduct only tends to increase the despotism of government. Their efforts only afford a plausible pretext for government to strengthen their power.

“Even if we admit that under a combination of circumstances specially unfavorable for the government, as in France in 1870, any government might be forcibly overturned and the power transferred to other hands, the new authority would rarely be less oppressive than the old one; on the contrary, always having to defend itself against its dispossessed and exasperated enemies, it would be more despotic and cruel, as has always been the rule in all revolutions.

“While socialists and communists regard the individualistic, capitalistic organization or society as an evil, and the anarchists regard as an evil all government whatever, there are royalists, conservatives, and capitalists who consider any socialistic or communistic organization or anarchy as an evil, and all these parties have no means other than violence to bring own to agreement. Whichever of these parties were successful in bringing their schemes to pass, must resort to support its authority to all the existing methods of violence, and even invent new ones.

“The oppressed would be another set of people, and coercion would take some new form: but the violence and oppression would be unchanged or even more cruel, since hatred would be intensified by the struggle, and new forms or oppression would have been devised. So it has always been after all revolutions and all attempts at revolution, all conspiracies, and all violent changes of government. Every conflict only strengthens the means of oppression in the hands of those who happen at a given moment to be in power.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Articles
Comments (1)

This past May, I posted a shorter essay about Leo Tolstoy and non-resistance. I wrote a longer paper on the topic (using the previous essay as its basis) and now wish to share it with you in full. Tomorrow I’ll post an excerpt from Tolstoy’s book The Kingdom of God is Within You that I find particularly compelling. It may be difficult for us to hear the challenge of Tolstoy to today’s world of violence, but even if we do not take a pure pacifist stance it is a message worth taking to heart. May we never think that a few more people dying will make our living better, may we never believe violence is the answer to the world’s problems.

image Russian writer Leo Tolstoy is considered one of the greatest novelists of all time. War and Peace and Anna Karenina have inspired millions over the last century. Less well-known about Tolstoy, though, is that his interpretation of Christian ethics has had a profound effect upon the world, especially regarding non-resistance and pacifism. In this paper, I will examine the development of these themes in Tolstoy’s philosophy as they appear in The Kingdom of God is Within You.

Leo Tolstoy was born in 1838 into an aristocratic family. He was the son of Count Nicholas Ilich Tolstoy and Princess Marya Nikolayevna Volkonsky, whose marriage was one of negotiation and convenience. Social class meant everything in eighteenth-century Russia, and the Tolstoys were part of the upper echelon of power. Leo’s ancestry included generals, diplomats, and ministers of the Tsarist rulers. Thus, Tolstoy enjoyed the privileges of the high class, such as the ability to attend university. As a young man, he lived a profligate and wild life while attending the University of Kazan, struggling to find a purpose in his life. He decided to join the military and went to war. Seeing the grim reality of war motivated him to write, and he achieved some early success in his publications while on the front. He finally married at age 34 and settled down to begin the major portion of his literary career. He also began to re-explore religion and came to a realization about God, the church, the state, and self. It was during this time that he reflected upon the writings of anarchists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and saw that non-resistance was the only means of lasting change to be found.

Read More→

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Articles, Book Reviews
Comments (5)

Who is behind LCC?

Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the About Page. You can write him a note or ask a question at the Contact Page. Follow him on Twitter.

Photobucket

Top Ron Paul Sites - Ranking the best Ron Paul related Freedom and Liberty Websites