This little event got me thinking. I've been reading a lot of stuff about pacifism lately, and for the most part, I am convinced. Christians are called to be peacemakers and lead lives of nonviolence. BUT - what if somebody barges into your home and there is a legitimate threat against your family. I know I won't even hesitate - I will kill, or at least critically injure that person. To me, it is much more justifiable to harm the criminal than to allow your family to be harmed in any way. If I really love my family, I'm going to protect them. I'll do whatever it takes.
With that example, it's also important to note the difference between pacifism and pasivism. Being passive means that you just let things slide. For example, not going outside to scare the dogs away. A pacifist, on the other hand, takes action. A pacifist, like this guy or this guy, fights - he just does so nonviolently. So, what does a pacifist do in the situation mentioned above? How does he protect his family? Is it okay for a pacifist to kill in this situation?Here's what I think: I think that pacifism, in this case, is irrelevant. If you look at the early Christians, they advocated nonviolence in direct response to persecution. Even when the Roman Empire would kill and torture Christians, the Christians would respond with nonviolence in order to show the love and mercy of Christ and to show that Christ was indeed truth. Even in the face of death, followers of Christ remained faithful. I believe that we, as Christians, are supposed to remain loyal to Christ and Christ alone. But I don't think the same scenario applies to situation above. The dog invading my camper is not attacking my belief in Christ, he just wants to hurt my family, and I am obligated to protect them - because I LOVE them.
To take this argument further (although I'm not even sure about what my argument really is at this point), what if this same type of situation could be applied on a larger scale? How do Christians respond when people are persecuting other people? Do we just give them food? That's not enough. Sometimes, I think that force may be necessary to adequately destroy social injustice. If you've seen Invisible Children (which you should) you know that the kids in Northern Uganda are having a rough time. They are being killed and abducted by the rebel army. If we want to adequately help these kids, then I think that force is the only answer. There are some nasty people out there who won't respond to grace. Tough love, in some cases, is necessary.
At the same time, I do not think that war among nation-states is justifiable for the Christian to be involved in. Nations have their own interests, and they ask citizens to die for their causes. Nations ask for loyal citizens to die and kill for them. To me, this is putting the nation over and above God. We are called to serve Christ, not America. We are called to love, not to hate. The book of Revelation, when properly understood, warns against the nation that exalts itself above God. Christians must not bow down to the nation-state. We must serve Christ, and Christ only. Just war, understood by most modern Americans, is completely bogus. We tend to think that if you mess with America, we can blow you up, and we think that God is behind us because we stand for democracy. Well guess what? God is not an American. God rules over the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now. We need to follow Jesus, not American ideals of democracy.
In regards to pacifism or just war or whatever other terminology you want to use, I would call myself, as Dr. Steve Sadler puts it, a near pacifist. I think we are called to live nonviolently, but at the same time, I am not going to say that there is absolutely no circumstance in which the Christian should use force. So, when the dogs of war come tramping on your ice coolers, what are you going to do?
5 comments:
Good thoughts. Very good thoughts. Stay posted, at SHLOG.COM I hope to soon post audio from a well-known Christian pacifist/theologian, Stanley Hauerwas. It's audio of him on a radio show fielding questions from Christians about pacifism. More good stuff.
SG
I love the distinction between pacifism and "pasivism." You and I are totally on the same page on this one. You'd like what Brian McLaren has to say about this in his new SECRET MESSAGE OF JESUS book. I think that, in general, violence-in-response-to-violence is a failure of creativity. But of course, in a situation where I can think of no response better than violence, then I'm morally bound to respond in the best way I can (which sometimes involves kicking a robber's ass).
Hauerwas is a beast and a half, and I really want to read McLaren's new book - it looks outstanding. And, I loved the "ass" comment.
I guess I agree with you here- but you have to admit that it's a creative use of the term pacifism... I would suspect that a lot of people who don't consider themselves pacifists would fit under your "version" of pacifism... maybe. Here's my only question... wouldn't those who chose war in this particular situation... and in some others... say that they are just protecting your family by going to war. If we felt threatened by terrorism, (in your analogy the robber) should be as the homeowner (or Americans) kick the crap out of them before they kick the crap out of us? How would you feel if you lost a loved one in 9-11 and America's answer was "Hey- No more imports for you!" You see what I mean. If you were in your home and weren't able to kick the crap out of the intruder- and that intruder hurt your loved one- you would want to hurt them. What's the difference when it comes to a nation? And what makes it right to use force to help childern in Africa, but not women and children in the middle east? I don't know I haven't really thought about this alot, but...
It's not necessarily that I want to hurt the robber - it's that I want to protect my family, and I'll do whatever is necessary to do so. I just think it's highly immoral to let your family suffer just so you don't hurt someone else for the sake of some ideal that you have. I guess I don't really see myself as a pacifist because being a pacifist seems to suggest that there is no excuse for violence. I'm just saying that I can't bring myself to say, "under no circumstance can Christians use force." I'm almost a pacifist.
You're definitely right, though, that this line of thought can easily be a slippery slope so that just about any threat posed can be used as an excuse for war. I think that war on terror and the war in Iraq are far from valid. But this is to be expected - America is a nation trying to protect "interests" more than anything else. America does NOT have the Christian ideals that a lot of evangelicals seem to think it has.
I don't know. This really requires a book to talk about.
Post a Comment