As to #2, I would fully agree that we are supposed to be radically different, and counter cultural. Frankly this isn’t too hard in a culture of selfishness and greed. People will call a saint for serving in a soup kitchen – St. Paul calls it “reasonable” when you lay your life down as a sacrifice.

As far as creative ways to be peacemakers in areas of conflict, I think of Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove of the Rutba House in NC. I’ll throw a link on here to a video of him speaking about a pretty life changing trip to Iraq. Hope this is ok.

http://vimeo.com/4514954

Great discussion Wayne!!

In your breaking it down into simplest level, you hit on a huge issue for me. What would I do if my family or loved ones were in danger? I’ve asked that and thought about that so often.

For everyone following the conversation, Pat has introduced an interesting distinction – he said “turning the other cheek has more to do with revenge than defense.” The Bible has more to say about vengeance than defense, so this is potentially helpful in sorting this out …

Do you think this is a valid distinction? If so, are there times violence is justifiable and when it is not? I think if we follow that logic, then the use of force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was not justifiable. Given the administration’s stated intent for the attacks (hunting down Al Qaeda and those responsible), those actions seem to be clear acts of vengeance.

What do y’all think?

What’s difficult for me (among many other aspects of this conversation that are difficult!) is how a Christian pacifist position allows the church and individual Jesus-followers to engage in the here-and-now. In a society/culture whose legacy is shaped by violence and whose future is bent toward violence, how do we engage? Specifically, how do we practice “here on earth what ‘heaven’ will be like” when we can’t address injustice (Afghanistan, Iraq, et. al.) head on, in the way of the culture?

Two thoughts, in the form of questions:

1) Is there a certain emptying (kenosis) of our rights as citizens of another kingdom required to enter into this kingdom here and now? This, it seems to me, would allow us to stand up for the oppressed, marginalized, and impoverished in the most direct way.

2) Or are we at certain points simply called to be radically different, counter-cultural, and represent the values of that greater kingdom? This would, it seems to me, push us toward more creative ways of engaging and bringing peace and wholeness to the oppressed.

Thanks for the challenging dialogue …

We don’t like to be taken advantage of, but as disciples we’re told that when our coat is stolen, to also give the thief our overcoat. The Kingdom is subversive in nature, and it’s kingdom where weakness is strength, and power comes in the form of a lamb.

An interesting passage of scripture is John 18: 33 Then Pilate went back into his headquarters and called for Jesus to be brought to him. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked him. 34 Jesus replied, “Is this your own question, or did others tell you about me?” 35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate retorted. “Your own people and their leading priests brought you to me for trial. Why? What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

Jesus said His kingdom is not an earthly (or physical) kingdom, and if it WAS, “my followers would fight”. But the Kingdom is NOT an earthly (or physical) kingdom, at least not now. There will be a day when the kingdom of God WILL be an earthly kingdom, and there will be peace and harmony throughout. The whole idear of being a disciple is living now in THIS earthly kingdom as we will be living in the Kingdom of God when Christ returns in His glory. You could say that we are practicing here on earth what “heaven” will be like.

I’m laying out very clear grounds why I should NOT be elected Commander in Chief here

Whether we’re talking about the pacifistic or just war position, all of this should be based out of Scripture, not on how we feel or what makes us feel good. Security and “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” make me feel good, but it doesn’t mean that’s true to the scriptures or what Christ wants from us as disciples. If we’re supposed to be emulating Christ, I can’t from my perch (which is no better than any other perch btw) reconcile any other behavior than one that seeks peace in non-violent ways. Violence was not ever present in the character of Christ, not when he was being taken advantage of, not when His life was taken from Him.

Just war makes sense from a political, security and governmental perspective, but not from the perspective of someone truly wanting to emulate Christ.

I know there is a tension with a pacifistic stance being viewed as somewhat dualistic. It’s idealistic because we live in a broken world, but I still feel that we have to live up to Christ’s ideals.

Wayne, I hope this answers your question about hearing the voice of Christ. I know this is not a popular position.

I always try to break things down to their simplist levels to help me work things out in my head. Capital punishment and war are 2 that I have given much thought.

At it’s basic level we are supposed to turn the other cheek. How far does that go? Are we not to protect our families? Are we not to protect ourselves? For me I have reconciled that God would not have me turn the other cheek if my wife were being attacked. I believe turning the other cheek has more to do with revenge than defense.

So if God would allow me to defend myself & my family, even with the use of force, then that opens the door to the use of force for anything I consider defense. I know that is being simplistic, but what allows me to believe in going to war.

There is no doubt in my mind that we can never secure our borders. There is no way to check every ship. There is no way to take a purely defensive posture and protect ourselves from terrorism. I truly believe the only reason we have not been attacked again since 911 is that we have gone after them and killed many of them and have them hiding in caves. I am OK with that. I can accept that as an acceptable use of force in defense of the country and ultimately my family.

I believe war IS a means of peace and not to be used to inpart justice. Justice is not for us to impart. We need war to achieve peace. I also believe the only way to achieve peace thru war is by total defeat of the enemy. If you look at past wars, peace has been achieved when one side totally defeated another. When war is stopped short of that, peace is never a permanant result. There are tons of examples to support this position. Another thing to consider is that we have defeated several countries in the last century. We have established bases in them as a result. In no country that the US has established a military presense and kept it there has another war been fought. Once we are there, the country generally lives in peace and is not attacked from the outside. I would call that peace thru total victory.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. It is hard to put thoughts together in this format and in a hurry, but I wanted to contribute and also read your reaction.

Take care and I will see you in 3 months.

Pat

As I wrestle with this issue, my fear with the pacifist position is that the “better” kingdom that is God’s becomes a solely “spiritual” thing, distant and disconnected from the nitty-gritty of this world. This kind of dualist separation seems to go against the logic of the incarnation (where “spiritual” God puts on flesh and exists inside the total human condition). Do you see a way of taking a pacifist stance without creating this kind of dualism?

Just War Theory would say that war is fought for retributive justice. Are you saying that you don’t agree with that? If so, how would you argue for war/violence as an appropriate human response?

Some of the questions you ask are the same kind that cause me to wrestle with this issue.

Do you agree with President Obama’s “take” on Just War Theory? Or do you think Just War Theory in some other (more classical) form is an appropriate logic?