[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Paul, the time period, culture and situation is not that different. America is a pagan nation with an interest divergent from the kingdom of God. The simple fact that it is a kingdom of this world would make it so.


Now, note Paul does not say people can't serve.

However, he tells slaves to try to purchase their freedom, and in several way equates military service to obedience to the will of those in authority. I think this intrinsically puts the Christian in a position of two masters.

True, that is a good point.

I would agree with you as well, if the military makes you a slave. However, if a slave were told to do something that dishonors God, is it not right for them to disobey and take the punishment for it?

When I signed my contract to join the Army, I did it with 100% peace and guidance from God, and I did it under one condition: I promised as I signed it that, if the day ever came when the Army told me to do something I knew was against God's law, I would disobey it and take the punishment, for I am a slave of something higher. The military doesn't hold my soul, God does. I signed a contract saying the Army has the right to punish me for disobeying them, but I will take that any day over God's judgment.

Originally Posted by WmRMartin

It's quite clear that we are told "though shall not kill." That the early Church was completely pacifist, they understood the teachings of Christ. Read some of the early Christian writers (i.e. Tertillian).

WE are also instructed to Love our enemies. You can' love them by killing them..

It's quite clear to me that we are told not to murder. Killing does not always equal murder. It can, but it does not always mean that. If we kill someone as punishment for murder, that's a Biblical concept. As the user Dwight Schrute pointed out, God has commanded people to kill.

The truth is, I'm all for pacifism. I honestly despise the idea of war, and it pains me significantly that thousands of people die and are going to Hell. But who am I loving if I refuse to fight and instead let other innocent, non-uniformed people get killed? We're instructed to love everybody and to protect those who can't protect themselves.

I didn't join the Army because I think Iraq and Afghanistan are morally perfect wars. I think there's a lot of evil in them. But I think there's also a lot of good, and I think we're protecting a lot of innocent people and improving life. Yeah, I'm ready for us to get out of those countries, but I think it's been worth at least some of the pain, which I say cautiously, because there has been a lot of it. My cousin lost good friends in Afghanistan. One of my best buddies from Basic Training did as well. There's a lot of hurt.


Another thing I would like to point out that is that I don't think all Christians can be soldiers without sinning, because "that which is not from faith is sin." I would caution some people away from joining the Army for precisely that reason, or if I believed it would only cause them harm spiritually. The military is a rough place to be a Christian.


Finally, in a perfect world, I think there should be no need for a military or police force (which, really, as a police officer, you may also be called upon to kill). I long for that day. But I don't think it's going to happen as long as humans are humans, and I think God purposely created a system where we can do what needs to be done to protect the innocent and weak.

Please recognize I'm not trying to start any sort of fruitless argument, and I hope I'm not appearing like I'm attacking you, because I absolutely don't intend to. This is a difficult topic that I've had to wrestle with, and I hope I'm helping you understand where I'm coming from and what I believe the Bible says.

I think this sums it up nicely:

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

I do not see this as a black and white issue as it is not spelled out in black and white or words in red.

Additionally, if needed, we can move this to another forum/PM's if the OP is done with the thread.

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by WmRMartin

It's quite clear that we are told "though shall not kill." That the early Church was completely pacifist, they understood the teachings of Christ. Read some of the early Christian writers (i.e. Tertillian).

WE are also instructed to Love our enemies. You can' love them by killing them..

It's important to remember that "The Early Church" was not a monolithic entity. There were factions and differences from the very beginning. In fact, the presence of disagreements was the reason for the writing of most of the New Testament letters!! I guarantee you that things did not become more unified after the apostles died.

In fact, though some Christians today claim that the whole Church was pacifistic prior to Constantine, the Legions were actually well-peppered with Christian soldiers by the time Constantine had his "conversion."

The point is that you can't simply point to "The Early Church" for support of pacifism any more than you can do so for infant baptism or credobaptism. A) There simply aren't enough writing scholars in any given time period to give an accurate account of prevailing thought, B) As in our day, there are many, many more Christians who never write a thing than those who do write, and C) The prevailing thought among scholars is rarely indicative of the prevailing thought among laypeople.

It needs also to be said that some of those often cited as pacifists may have been conditional pacifists (as I am).

More importantly, it must be remembered that many of the writers in the Early Church advocated other positions that we would view as radically non-Biblical. Tertullian, for example, actually joined a heretical cult called the Montanists after having a very productive pastoral career within apparently orthodox Christianity. Origen, also a pacifist, also believed that God created all human souls before he ever created the earth and that after a period of suffering, all souls would be redeemed (no soul would remain in hell forever). Pointing us to Tertullian is problematic.

Tony Campolo, I would say, is a problematic endorsement as well.

Now, back to what I have suggested, I do believe that Christians are called to abstain from military service. However, it is not as simple as quoting "Turn the other cheek." We've got to actually deal with the fact that Israel was commanded to kill every living thing in cities in Canaan during the conquest. God Himself required the armies of Israel to kill in battle. Simple pacifism does not deal with this fact or attempt to reconcile the Old and New Testaments. What I have called "New Covenant Pacifism" is an attempt to do so.

[Ridley's Own]

Wow, lots of interesting things to respond to...

I think I'd encourage people to actually read the pacifists who engaged in social change before mischaracterizing pacifism as a rejection of all violence. No doubt Gandhi did violence to the Imperial system in India. No doubt Dr. King did violence to Jim Crow. No doubt The White Rose did violence to the Nazis. The violence that pacifists would renounce involves doing violence to a person, another creation of God.

Loving an enemy also means praying and urging their repentance when their beliefs or actions are causing harm; Dr. King didn't advocate assassinating Bull Connor because he wanted God to change Connor's heart. He endured the violence Bull Connor meted out because he believed that Connor was fundamentally a good person, and that no person rationally does violence to another. Pacifists choose pacifism because it's a better agent for change than shooting them. That we bear witness to Christ in a better way by suffering rather than causing suffering.

I'd argue, contra the hardline pacifists, that there are discrete times when physical force becomes necessary, primarily because the agents involved are no longer rational. Example: I believe the possession of nuclear weapons, together with an integrated trade network, is the single greatest peace dividend we have. The rule out, completely, 2nd World War style great power war. No country is going to engage with that sort of thing, so tensions get worked out in nonviolent means: diplomacy, espionage, trade, etc. Doing away with nuclear weapons makes the world system a less safe place.

There's a difference between reactionary pacifism (OMG killing is bad!) and a pacifism that engages with struggle.

[quote=TedIn fact, though some Christians today claim that the whole Church was pacifistic prior to Constantine, the Legions were actually well-peppered with Christian soldiers by the time Constantine had his "conversion."[/quote]

I'd have to go find the book I read this in, but apparently soldiers who were baptized kept their sword arm out of the water when they received the sacrament. Nothing is exactly clear cut about the pre-Nicene church, to be sure. Except that they were all Episcopalians.

I'm not sure 'dual citizen' is accurate; I've always understood 'resident alien' a better term. Citizenship implies some kind of loyalty or duty that I"m not entirely willing to grant to the secular powers; however, I'm here, I enjoy the protection of laws and the benefits that come with being present in a country, so I still pay taxes and would, if asked and drafted, to protect those laws and government that I've benefited from. But understand, again, in a basic way, that the 'rights' we enjoy exist simply because we say they exist, because the community has agreed upon them; not because the US gov't has succeeded in protecting 'inalienable,' God-given rights. So the issue is one of all responsibility, not citizenship.

Not sure that made sense.

[Ted Logan]

I don't like the term "dual-citizen," and "resident alien" and "exile" have the benefit of being explicitly biblical (1 Pet 2:11), but we can't get around the fact that though our truer citizenship is in the Kingdom of God, our countries of origin and countries of choice have chosen to grant us this-worldly citizenships as well. So perhaps it is best to remember Paul's example without drawing too many conclusions from it - Paul used his Roman citizenship apparently when he thought it would advance the Gospel, but we don't have evidence that he saw it as having any value apart from its utility in his mission.