Day 23: On Christian Pacifism

I think all Christian believers balk at following Jesus at some point. They may say, "First let me bury my loved one," or transact some important business that will make me a lot of money, or complete some task I have started. then I will follow Jesus.

There is something distinctly challenging about following Jesus. It is a fearful prospect. That is unless we redefine "following Jesus" as simply going to church on Sunday morning, sporting a fish decal on the bumper of our car, and repeating supposed Christian memes on Facebook about how unGodly the libs are.

But really following Jesus, we may naively commit ourselves to such a way ("I will follow you anywhere, Jesus") but soon Jesus will make some demand, even simply a demand upon your way of thinking, at which we balk. We may walk away sadly like the rich young ruler, or we may surround our balk with theological or simply practical rationalizations. This latter response is the most common in our day.

I say this as one who has "balked" many times and in numerous ways in my Christian life. This balk, which we usually don't even recognize or acknowledge, is a tacit recognition of the cost of discipleship. The good news here is that God is patient with his children and merciful. For this I am deeply grateful.

I wrote yesterday about the Christian's role as an ambassador for the kingdom of God here in this fallen world, where the kingdoms of this world have their reign. The post was prompted by an online conversation I had with an old friend about, as I saw it, the strange Christian attitude toward war. While we talk a good game about our opposition, say, to wanton murder (including the murder of the unborn) or the deleterious effects of pornography, when it comes to our nation's wars, we set aside our high-minded concerns and decide on purely political and practical/pragmatic grounds whether we shall support or oppose war in a particular case. Mostly, in the name of patriotism, we choose to support.

In other words, we balk. Because it is very clear to me that war is the option presented by Satan. War is from below. As people who represent, as ambassadors, a kingdom of peace, we can have nothing to do with it. 

This is my view, and I think it is Biblical. After a lengthy back and forth with my friend on this subject, I noticed that, as usual in these kinds of exchange, my friend's reasoning was entirely practical. War would accomplish something valuable for our nation or for another nation. It would depose a dictator, it would establish freedom in some hitherto unfree place, it would protect American interests in some way. 

In the decision to support or oppose a nation's war-making, there is a choice that equates to the narrow way, and one that equates to the broad way. History shows us that war is a broad and crowded way. Many choose it, to their own regret. War is the worldly way of worldly kingdoms. War is a product of the Fall. War is sin. War is from below. 

Which brings to an excellent article on the subject of Christian pacifism. It's lengthy, but I highly recommend it. the authors, after detailing some various historic Christian arguments against pacifism, goe on to list 4 Biblical themes that provide "the foundational theological rationale for Christian pacifism."

I want to mention those 4 themes in brief. Again, I highly recommend you read the whole thing if this subject interests you.

The 4 foundational themes are:

1. The "love command" as a summary of the Biblical message. I think this is indisputable. the authors cite many Scriptural passages, and conclude with this: "The love command provides the central building block for Christian pacifism—both in the positive sense of establishing love as the highest ethical standard that can never be secondary to some other possibly violence-justifying ethical value and in the negative sense of providing the basis for rejecting the participation in war as a morally acceptable choice."
2. An alternative politics. Their explanation here is particularly needed, I think. I'll just leave this brief snip: "Jesus articulated a sharp critique of power politics and sought to create a counter-cultural community independent of nation-states in their dependence upon the sword." I think the author's present a particularly profound summary of the Biblical witness on this point.
3. Optimism about the potential for human faithfulness."When he said “follow me,” he clearly expected people to do so—here and now, effectively, consistently, fruitfully." This largely undermines the common critique of pacifism which says, "You speak much about the kingdom of God, but don't you realize that we live in the tension of the now and the not yet of the kingdom?" The suggestion here is that until Jesus returns to establish his kingdom, not only will there be sin in the world, but we Christians will have no choice but to choose the broad away instead of the narrow at times. The "not yet" of the kingdom does not excuse us from following Jesus now. Jesus never suggested, I know you won't be able to follow in the narrow way when it comes to loving your neighbor in a time of war. These precepts of mine are only ideals, not actual commands.
4. The model of the cross."The powers that be, the religious and political institutions, the spiritual and human authorities, responded to Jesus’ inclusive, confrontive, barrier-shattering compassion and generosity with violence.  At its heart, Jesus’ cross may be seen as embodied pacifism, a refusal to turn from the ways of peace even when they are costly.  So when he calls his followers to share in his cross he calls them to embody pacifism.

The article delves into these 4 points at length, whereas mine is a cursory summary. It is all well worth reading, and I am tempted to simply quote long passages verbatim 

Like this:

The powers that be, the religious and political institutions, the spiritual and human authorities, responded to Jesus’ inclusive, confrontive, barrier-shattering compassion and generosity with violence.  At its heart, Jesus’ cross may be seen as embodied pacifism, a refusal to turn from the ways of peace even when they are costly.  So when he calls his followers to share in his cross he calls them to embody pacifism.

This:

 Jesus’ cross points to pacifism as his style of life; it also points away from trusting in the swords and spears of empires and institutional religion, the very structures of human social life that killed Jesus.

 Or this:

Revelation holds Jesus’ pattern up as the model for his followers.  The ones who God heals are the ones who “follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (Rev 14:4),” the ones who refuse to kill with the sword (Rev 13:10).  Those who “conquer” in God’s way in Revelation conquer with suffering love.  Those who “conquer” in the Beast’s way, conquer with violence.

 The article from which I draw all these quotations (found here) is called "Christian Pacifism in Brief" and was the originally published as the prologue for a collection of essays called A Pacifist Way of Knowing: John Howard Yoder's Nonviolent Epistemology.