Where does this idea of [Christianity] demanding total pacifism come from? The Bible?, especially Jesus himself, doesn't (as far as PlasmonPerson understands) ever lay a blanket ban on 'violence' (whatever that means), or even just killing. According to PlasmonPerson, it's more down on character traits like anger, whether that results in death or not, than it is on the actual act of killing. In general, PlasmonPerson's impression is not that violence is utterly forbidden, but that there are appropriate and inappropriate times and reasons for violence.
So: where's this total rejection of violence come from? And what comes under the heading of 'violence' anyway?
AlexChurchill thinks NIV: Matthew 5: 21-22,38-48 makes it fairly clear where such a point of view comes from. Although the kind of extreme pacifism espoused by StanleyHauerwas and AngelaRayner is not the only interpretation of Jesus' words, it seems a fairly natural one.
The first of those says nothing about whether killing is per se wrong, and indeed seems to confirm the idea that it's the anger, not the act, which is culpable. The others again do not outlaw killing. The second says not to kill in revenge (a life for a life), but that's all: it doesn't say killing is in all circumstances wrong. The third is the tricky one: can killing be compatible with loving? Well, if we leave aside for a moment actualy death, my love for my brother, say, would not prohibit me from using force to stop him doing something evil: indeed it makes my desire to stop him from doing evil all the stronger! So this does not prohibit violence.
And, given that God heartily endorses quite a lot of killing through the course of the Bible, this strengthens the idea that what is important is that there is a time for killing, and killing for the wrong reason or at the wrong time is what is evil, not simply the act of violence.
[One of thousands of essays] about the conflict of war with the sixth commandment (found in the Bible, in case someone hasn't realised).
PeterTaylor doesn't think that's a fair summary of what the essay's about. War is mentioned, but is hardly core to the discussion. It's about the distinction between killing and murdering, and the role of authority and conscience.
...which is important to the author because the guy's a soldier and is trying to square what he is ordered to do with the sixth commandment; hence the relevance to this page with its assertion that the Bible does not condemn killing. - MoonShadow
It's a rambling and doesn't really say much that's not obvious to anyone with half a brain, anyway. - PlasmonPerson
So are you going to make an attempt at squaring the sixth commandment with what you say above, or should we just assume you interpret it as something wooly like "thou shalt not commit murder, where murder is defined as killing someone that it is obvious to anyone with half a brain it's not really OK to kill"? - MoonShadow
As the author of the 'essay' makes no serious attempt to square the commandment against killing with anything, but rather just wibbles a bit before coming to a conclusion which is a complete lack of conclusion, I don't see why I need to say anything other than is already at the top of this page, which sets out a position fairly clearly.
(PeterTaylor) That's the origin, not the subject, of the essay.
That the sixth commandment is not a prohibition on all killing can easily be inferred from God's command to use capital punishment within the same book of the Bible. To take this commandment as a prohibition against all killing is to make the whole book of Exodus so inconsistent as to make it nonsensical to pay any attention to the commandments in the first place since such an inconsistent book could surely not be taken as any sort of authority. The understanding of 'do not murder' makes the book consistent and thus believable. --MJ
Fair enough, I'm convinced; there are plenty of occasions when killing people is just, fair and Biblical. I'll go away and learn to deal with the bad taste in my mouth now. - MoonShadow
I don't know about 'plenty'! And there exist far more convincing arguments about not killing - but to argue directly from the disputable translation of the sixth commandment, in view of context, doesn't seem a very strong one. I should try to learn not to dash these things off too hurriedly such as to make them sound undiplomatic. That way I can keep my undiplomacy for when I really want to use it ;) --MJ
It is very easy to come up with reasons why the Bible does not prohibit all killing. It's possible to look to the Old Testament and point out that God even told some people to kill. Other people like to say that Jesus even instructed his apostles to carry a sword. But what Christians who are pacifists believe is that Christ's sacrifice was the last sacrifice necessary. We sacrificed God, and because God died for us and rose again, there is no longer any need for us to sacrifice one another. That's why I say that this kind of pacifism doesn't make sense outside of Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount can be seen, not so much as a set of commands, but as a description of a people constituted in a certain way. They are visibly seen to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. They fail to see that any good distinction can be made between good reasons and bad reasons to kill. But the point is that this position is not arrived at after reading a few books, even after reading the Bible. That alone won't do. It takes a community of people who live out this kind of message, who can practice pacifism in a way that means it is not about standing around and doing nothing. It takes a community shaped by the Holy Spirit. It takes practice to read the Bible like this and then to live out this kind of message. And the reason one might practice reading in this way is because we see Jesus' action as the ultimate one. In laying down his life for us, without struggling or fighting, but willingly, we imitate the example He set for us. Now we believe that God will not ask humans to kill one another, and so we do not endorse killing. --AR
Most of the church fail to be a community that looks like this. I wonder, indeed, whether I have the resources or the practice in being able to live non-violently. It is something that I think needs to be learned from an early age. I will admit that Christian non-violence is accepted by a minority. A position in which one is required to die alongside a kindergarten, instead of heroically rescuing them is never going to be popular. But Jesus never promised popularity. Many Christians, instead, argue for a position known as "just war". The conditions required for "just war" are also very strict. Again, I think they require a community who support them for them to be enacted. Even with a "just war" position, one is likely to have to take a peaceful stance when one would rather be out there fighting for one's country. I think that the commands within Exodus, and then those re-iterated by the gospels only make sense when interpreted by a living community. They do not make sense alone. The Bible is not a manual of helpful advice, but a resource that God uses to shape a wandering people so that they know that they are claimed by Him. --AR
What is violence? I think violence can be a physical or mental assault on the body, inflicted on somebody who does not consent to the infliction. That's not going to cover every eventuality. There are examples that it won't cover, but I'm trying to make a start. --AR
And I honestly don't know where to start in that lot. But how about the confusing that you seem to have entered into with regards 'violence', 'killing' and 'sacrifice'. Could you justify arguing from Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice to 'so there is no longer any need to kill'? Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice that restores God and man, as the OT animal sacrifices did, I can see that, but what has that to do with killing humans?
The way I see it, in terms of narrative, is that after the fall, we became sinful and attempted to atone for that sin. The way that the nation of Israel did that was to offer sacrifices to God. Mostly, I think, these were animal sacrifices, in which animals had to be prepared and then sacrificed in a certain kind of way. Once however, Isaac nearly sacrificed Jacob, so it wasn't just about animals. The animal sacrifices were, I suppose, an attempt at the appeasement of God. And yet, God made it clear that He would not be appeased in such a way. He did not want to be appeased, but sought friendship with mankind. And yet, because of the breach that sin had caused, it was necessary for healing to take place. Jesus Christ was sent to be a human being in order to heal the breach caused by human sin, and also because through that sending, God's revelation of Himself would be complete. I'm getting a bit waffly. The point is that the sacrifice of animals was an attempt to achieve the restoration of human relationship with God. But that is no longer necessary because God has made the sacrifice of himself - emptied himself, so that we don't need to sacrifice things to attempt peace with God any more. And if we don't need to sacrifice things to make peace with God, then why are we killing others to bring about peace? Christians believe that God has already brought about peace by inaugurating the kingdom of God. Killing humans can be seen then, as an attempt, to bring about the peace that God has already given. --AR
Goliath was not a sacrifice. And, even if you can somehow (and please explain how!) equate 'atoning sacrifice' with 'all killing', you've expanded 'violence' to include thngs other than killing. How does that make sense?
That'll do for a start.
Atoning sacrifice means that all of the killing that needs to be done has been done. Christians no longer have any good reason to kill. The only reason that we killed, to begin with, was to bring about peace with God, but peace has now been brought about. --AR
That's completely missing the point. I'm not talking about killing as a way of making peace with God. Surely you can see that? Making peace with God isn't the only reason to kill, just like holy communion isn't the only reason to eat bread. We no longer need to kill as sacrifices to bring about peace with God, sure, but how can you possibly go from that to 'therefore all killing is wrong'?
Because I then ask what other reasons there might be for killing. Making peace with God, and with our neighbour is the only possible reason that one might kill (as far as I can see). Even somebody who is part of the just war tradition has to be able to see peace as the end result of their violence. Holy Communion isn't the only reason to eat bread, but our reason for doing it can't be separated from the other reasons we eat bread. Through Holy Communion, we receive spiritual and physical nourishment. Through the ordinary eating of bread, we receive physical and spiritual nourishment. --AR
I don't get spiritual nourishment from eating (normal) bread... --M-A
There's always one ;-). I think my answer is that you ought to. If we're serious when we pray for daily bread, our reception of it depends upon the goodness of God (and us going to work). It's more of an answer to prayer for many in the world, than those of us who live (mostly in the west) with the expectation of cake realise. --AR
We've been through this. What about killing as a way of protecting those one has a responsibility to protect? That has nothing to do with bringing peace between men and God.
The only reason one might have a responsibility to protect would be in order to bring about peace between say, them and their attacker. I don't think I can separate the two. --AR
"Bring about peace between"? What does that mean in the context of someone attacking your hypothetical playgroup? --King DJ
It means that I would do everything that I could, everything non-violent possible, in order to stand between the attacker and the playgroup. But bringing about peace does not (for Christian pacifists) entail violent encounters. --AR
So would you save a child from drowning in a river in order to bring about peace between them and the river?
One cannot make peace with a river. But yes, I hope that I would save a drowning child from a river so long as I would not have to kill to do so. --AR
Right. So think of saving the child from the madman in the same way as saving it from the river. Nothing mystic, no ideas about bringing peace between mn and God or man and man, just someone in danger that and it falls to you to save them.
Now, there's a possible reason to kill which has nothing to do with bringing about peace. Whether or not Christ has brought about peace between men and God, this world still includes people in danger who need to be saved from all types of dangers, animal, vegetable, mineral and human.
I'm trying to draw a distinction between killing or doing violence to another human being, and being prepared to die and not do violence to another human being. The river analogy and the madman analogy are two separate analogies that I can't pretend are really one. Our human salvation has already been brought about. --AR
What if it was a mad dog instead of a madman? --Rachael, trying to blur the boundary between the two analogies
You said 'Making peace with God, and with our neighbour is the only possible reason that one might kill (as far as I can see)'. In what way have I not just provided you with another reason to kill, that is, to save someone else from harm?
I don't think that saving somebody from harm is a good enough reason to kill. It's a good enough reason to die, but not to kill. The reason it's not a good enough reason to kill is because Christ has already achieved what I'd be setting out to do. I think we're getting circular, so we could call it a day... --AR
Ah. So you admit it is a reason to kill; your objection is that it is not a good enough reason to kill. If only you'd said that in the first place. Now we're getting somehere. Time for a new section...
It is a reason to kill. But I never think that there is a good enough reason to kill. Even if the world would be saved from nuclear annihilation by my killing of one person, I hope I would not kill that person. --AR
Ah, but what if you thought that God was telling you to kill that one person? --M-A, only partly flippantly.
I don't think that God's saying that would be consistent with God's previous action on the cross. --AR
Okay. You say that if you killed a madman in order to save a child from harm, Christ would already have achieved what you set out to do. How is that? What has Christ achieved? Has he saved the child from harm? Obviously not, as the blade will still cut, the blood will still flow. Has he saved the child's soul? Possibly, but then the same point applies to the child in the river: its soul has been saved as much as the one threatened by the machete. So could you explain in what way you mean that Christ has achieved what you woul dbe setting out to do?
I didn't say that, because I said I would not kill the madman. I'd get in the way of the madman or do some other action, but I wouldn't kill the mad man. I wouldn't kill the mad man because attempting to kill the madman would be my attempt at bringing about a peace that I think Christ has already brought. We don't achieve peace through violence. That is what we learn through following Jesus. --AR
When Jesus cleared the temple, was that non-violent? --M-A
I don't think it was a physical or mental assault on the body (according to the above definition of violence), so I'd say not. Being a pacifist means that non-violent conflict is essential. It is absolutely essential that one is able to have an argument. --AR
You said: 'I wouldn't kill the mad man because attempting to kill the madman would be my attempt at bringing about a peace that I think Christ has already brought'
NO! I thought we'd already established that we were laing aside '[bringing peace]?' (whatever that means) and considering the reason for your action to be saving the child from physical harm.
You wrote that you considered saving the child from harm (NB: not 'bringing peace' (whatever that is)) as a reason for killing, just not a good enoguh reason. I asked you why it wasn't a good enough reason. You wrote that it was not a good enough reason because Christ had already done what you were trying to do. What you were trying to do was save the child from harm.
I don't think (as I've said previously) that there is ever a good enough reason for killing. I would endeavour to do anything possible that was non-violent to save a child or any other human being from harm. The reason that there is never a good enough reason for killing is because the only good reason for killing that I can see is killing to bring about peace. Since Christ has already brought about peace, I would not kill to do so. Saving a child from a killer could be argued to be an activity of the peacemaker, but it is not a good enough reason for killing. Saving a child from a river is not an activity of peace-making. I realise that it seems odd to state that Christ has already brought about peace in such a situation, but I'm speaking from the perspective of the kingdom of God, rather than the perspective of the world. The task of the disciples of Jesus Christ is not to force(!) the world to be peaceful, but to demonstrate the peace that Christ has brought to Christians. Rescuing a child from a killer is an activity of peace-making, but killing the killer is not. In the attempt to save from harm, I am attempting to make peace, not monger-war. I don't think "saving the child from harm" is unrelated to peace-making, which is why I draw a distinction between the river and the killer. --AR
Um. "I don't think X is a good enough reason for killing because I don't think any reason for killing is good enough" isn't an explanation, it's an assertion. It doesn't tell us why you think that. The argument that follows doesn't seem to explain much - "The only good reason for killing is to make peace with God" begs the question "why do you think that's the only good reason for killing? - why isn't X a good reason?".. which is right back where we started; nothing's actually been explained; and replying with the same thing again just takes you round the same circle again. Do you see the problem? - MoonShadow
OK, I think I see the problem. I don't think X (or any reason) is a good enough reason for killing because in Christ's action, I see the practices of surrender in the face of violence. Christ was not violent, and did not advocate the practices of violence when teaching his discples --AR
No, in the attempt to save from harm, you are attempting to save from harm. No more and no less. this mystical concept of 'peace' doesn't come into it. If you don't act violently, the child will be cut; if you do, it won't. 'Peace' has nothing to do with it.
You say that 'the only good reason I can see for killing is to bring about peace'. I am trying to get you to justify that. Why are other reasons for killing not good? Justify your statement!
I was working from the presumption that what Christians do is live out the kingdom of God. I fail to see how one can imitate Christ in any other way. I'm struggling to see how killing can bear witness to the Kingdom, already inaugurated by Christ. What higher good can there be for the Christian than living out the kingdom? Reasons for killing may look good from a certain perspective... Indeed, I can understand why one would want to save the child, but I cannot see the child's life as more valuable than that of their killer. Both of those people are Christ-shaped. I'm sorry. I realise that this is hard work for you, but I'm struggling to see why there could be other good reasons for killing, when Christ did not advocate them. I see, in the eyes of the killer, one of the least of my brothers and an enemy worthy of being loved. I can't separate the peaceful practices that I think Christians are called to from Christ's practicing of peace. If I save the child from the killer *by killing*, I am doing something akin to refusing to let Christ be crucified. --AR
I ask why saving from harm is not a good enough reason to kill, and you reply with irrelevant stuff about bringing peace. Forget peace. You agree that saving from harm is a possible reason to kill. You think it is not a good reason. Why is it not a good reason? And remember that in this situation you are not trying to act as a peacemaker, you are simply trying to save the child from harm, in exactly the same way as if you were saving it from a river (which you admit is not an activity of peace-making). So why is saving a child from harm not a good enough reason to kill?
Because if saving a child from harm were a good enough reason to kill, then saving the Saviour from harm would be an even greater good. But Christ forbade the use of violence for bringing about the kingdom. He would not let Peter kill to stop his death. It wasn't to be a kingdom of success or winning or surviving, but of self-renunciation, resurrection and eternal life. --AR
Rubbish. Saving Christ from being killed was a very special case, and does not reflect at all on other cases of saving from harm. You might as well say that you shouldn't save a child from a river, because is saving a child from harm was a good enough reason for saving a child form a river, then saving the Saviour from harm would be a greater good and so we should have non-violently cut him down from his cross and nursed him better. Do you think we should have done that?
I don't accept that saving Christ from being killed was a very special case. That's why I'm arguing from his example to other examples. Of course I don't think we should have cut Christ down from the cross. That is what I'm trying to argue. --AR
You don't think we should have cut Christ down from the cross? And you think that Christ is not a special case. That presumably means that you think that we should leave any innocent man we should happen to find on a cross up there to die, even if we could free him using non-violent means. Right?
I don't think we should have cut Christ down from the cross. Another question might be, ought we to do have done so if the option had been open to us to do so non-violently? Again, I'd respond in the negative. So Christ is a special case in the sense that we were not to save Him by /any/ means. But when I say that I don't accept it was a special case, I mean that I think that he demands our death before our violence by starting something new. Thus I think it acceptable to rescue the innocent by non-violent means, but not by violence. --AR
So Christ is a special case in one way, but not in another way. Why do you distinguish betwen the cases? Why is the 'don't save him by violence' not just a special case of the 'don't save him'?
'I think that he demands our death before our violence by starting something new' -- what exactly do you mean by that, and could you explain why you think it?
Christ forbade the use of violence for preventing the Kingdom from being brought about, as saving him at that point would have done.
And even if we accept that Christ forbids the use of violence in bringing about the kingdom, that still says nothing about other uses of violence, like saving people from harm (and you agree that saving people form harm is in general a good and noble thing). Just because we can't kill to bring about the kingdom, doesn't mean we can't kill to stop suffering if there is no other way (if there is another way, fo course we should use it).
But other uses of violence (I assume) are contrary to the aims of bringing about the kingdom. I've said that saving people from harm is generally good and noble, but not in the case where violence is necessary to do so. I'm not telling you what to do to stop suffering. I'm trying to explain why I couldn't stop suffering in such a way. I'm not the only pacifist Christian - it was a common practice in the first couple of centuries of Christianity. --AR
Why do you assume that? You keep saying that 'saving people from harm is generally good and noble, but not in the case where violence is necessary to do so' but you don't say why. What is it about violence that stops saving people being good and noble? Is 'violence is always wrong' just an unsupported premise of your argument?
She did, actually. This: "OK, I think I see the problem. I don't think X (or any reason) is a good enough reason for killing because in Christ's action, I see the practices of surrender in the face of violence. Christ was not violent, and did not advocate the practices of violence when teaching his discples --AR"
Christ surrendered in the face of violence to him. That doesn't necessarily tell us whether we are to stand back and let violence happen to others. Also, while Christ may never have killed, God did, and after Christ's death too, in Acts. So we don't actually know what Christ would have done in a situation where he could not help except by violence, because he never found himself in such a situation. It is also never recorded that he told any of the soldiers he met to leave the army (and I don't think any of the apostles did, either). Certainly he didn't advocate violence, but I can't see as he totally ruled it out, either. So I ask for an explanation of why violence is always wrong.
Again, I'd like to correct the statement that pacifism means "standing back". I don't see it as an inactive option. It forces one to think of alternative options. I don't want to "stand back" and let violence happen to others. My first preference is to act to stop violence. I simply don't advocate doing that violently. If I did, I don't know that I'd have much of a leg to stand on to object to the violence of others (I'm not sure that that's a good argument though). I would like to see us surrendering in the face of violence when inflicted upon /us/, like Christ did. That might involve us standing between the innocent and perpetrators of violence in a way that we're not currently doing. I'd like us to be prepared to go and stand between our armed forces and Iraqis. That way it would not be so easy to frame the discussion as us standing around doing nothing except condemning the violence of others. There are ways of reading God's action of killing in both the Old Testament and Acts as a way that means humans don't have to. If we trust that God will kill those who do wrong, like happened in Acts, then why must we kill? With regard to the apostles, I see discipleship as a kind of military practice - a non-violent army marching after the Prince of Peace. I think that the call to follow Christ is a call not to follow the ways of the world, but to come away from certain previous occupations. In the same way I see being a prostitute as incompatible with being a Christian, I see being in the armed forces as incompatible too. And I think Christ was in a situation where he couldn't free the world except through violence, and rather than accede to that violence, I think he succombed to giving up His own life in obedience to the Father. I would say that he totally ruled out violence to achieve our ends as a failure to trust God and His ends. I'm not saying that you can't make out a case for limited violence. Indeed, that case has been made by those who argue for the tradition of just war. But even with that tradition, there are times when you will have to stand by as others are killed... --AR
But at least we've got past 'bringing peace'.
Please stop bringing up 'just war'. I haven't mentioned it. It's a red herring.
I'm not convinced it is a red herring. I think that the stance for a Christian to take with regard to their daily actions is a stance of peace. "Just war" names a tradition in which Christians have said "in these circumstances, we think violence is acceptable". As far as I know, this hasn't occurred for the occasions that you're talking about - those that involve three individuals, one of whom can't defend themselves, one who is expected to defend and another who attacks. The only reason I brought in "just war" is to point out that it is a theory that is supposed to limit violence (which I presume you're in favour of), and I think that it highlights the difficulties that surround situations in which some Christians think violence might be used.
It's a red herring because I'm not advocating just war theory, so your saving 'but just war theory has these failings too' has zero relevance to our discussion.
Okay, I apologise for using the phrase 'stand back'. I accept that you keep saying that you will use non-violent methods to save lives, and on that we can agree. The issue is only what is to be done when no non-violent alternatives that will work are available.
I think the phrase I take issue with is "that will work". I don't know that non-violent alternatives are not going to work. There are never any guarantees of outcome. Pacifists can give examples in which people have been talked around to being peaceful. Soldiers can give examples of the use of violence that "didn't work" to protect the innocent. I do not agree that violence is necessary to make things "work". The question is presented in such a way that the killer's only intention is killing, the bystander has the ability to stop the killer and the victim would always insist upon the killer being stopped. What if I had a last minute change of heart, grabbed a knife and plunged it into the killer, but missed and hit the child? What if I killed the killer, but discovered afterwards that their gun was empty?
What if the world turned into jelly and you all sank into its limey depths? What if, what if, what if? All you can deal with is what is and what you reasonably think you can make happen. In some circumstances you might reasonably think you can talk someoen out of violence, in others this is unreasonably optimistic.
What if the child, who had been brought up a pacifist, knew that the thing to do in this situation was run, and let me take the bullet? I think that the hypothetical situation is set up in such a way that it is always a "no-win" situation.
That, I suppose, would lead to the situation of you and the child pushing each other in order to be the first to take abullet and re-enact Christ's sacrifice, which might be good as it would have the madman laughing so hard he couldnt; attack... oh but then he might die laughing, in which case you're out of luck, aren't you, because you killed him to save yourself...
'If we trust that God will kill those who do wrong, like happened in Acts, then why must we kill' -- well (a) he blatantly doesn't, so that's irrelevant, and (b) I'm not talking about doing wrong, I'm talking about killing to save lives, so it's doubly irrelevant. My point could equally well apply if the person who needed to be killed to save others was not doing wrong at all.
I agree that I don't think God does kill those who do wrong, but I don't think that means He makes it our job. I think that killing to save lives is still wrong. As I said above, there is no "right", there's only a possible damage limitation strategy. It's still killing. It goes against the command not to murder. Your damage limitation strategy is to kill the killer. Mine is to do anything non-violent, but kill.
Yes yes yes we've heard all this. You think killing to save lives is still wrong. We're just trying to work out why and if that makes sense.
'In the same way I see being a prostitute as incompatible with being a Christian, I see being in the armed forces as incompatible too' -- then why didn't Jesus tell the soldiers he met to leave the army? Why doesn't Peter when he stays with the centurion and converts him and his family (maybe he did, I suppose, but if it was that important you'd think it woul dhave been recorded)?
I think that in calling soldiers to "follow me", he may well have been telling them to leave the army. I'm not clear that tax collectors who followed him continued collecting taxes. I also don't buy the "if it was that important, it would have been recorded" argument. I've not been taught to read the Bible in that way.
Then how do you read the Bible (and why has what you were taught got anything to do with it? Some of what I was taught I still follow, some I have superceded, but I would never offer as a defence of something 'that's how I was taught'. Either it's right or useful or helpful or not, but that fact I was taught it makes no difference on whether it is or not).
So, we get back to: 'I would say that he totally ruled out violence to achieve our ends as a failure to trust God and His ends.' Please explain why you would say this, because so far you haven't done so clearly. Are you basing this completely on the one incident with Peter and the sword?
No. I'm basing it on the re-iteration of the command not to murder. I'm basing it on the incident of Peter and the sword. I'm basing it on the command to love enemies. I'm basing it on the instruction not to resist evil. I'm partly basing it on the advice that the family is not to be one's primary love (unless you hate your mother and father...), but that God's kingdom is more primary. I'm basing it on the teaching that Christians are not supposed to have favourites. I'm basing it on the kind of thinking that says that if God died for all of us when we were yet sinners, he didn't show partiality towards anybody, and we ought to love everybody equally like Him. Lastly, I'm basing it on the Christians I know who live by this standard, who make sense of these commands. I didn't arrive at this position by sitting in a room reading the Bible. I base it on the living witnesses who demonstrate that this minority tradition means powerlessness against power, donkeys against horses, stables against thrones and all that makes for peace and builds up our common life against the kind of ethic that demands results. When I said that this doesn't make sense outside of the Kingdom of God, I meant it. I think that to be able to read the Bible in this way (and it isn't the only way, of course), one requires a community. Outside of a community that reads like that, it does not make sense. I say that He ruled out violence to achieve our ends because His ending has already been achieved - Christ has been raised. We don't get to choose how history turns out. --AR
Right, well, before that went odd I get that you're basing it on a load of incidents that suggest the reading you have put on it, but are by no means conclusive, ignoring a load which contradict your reading, and yet again bringing in the irrelevant idea of treating everybody equally.
After it went odd you seem to be saying that since Christ has been raised we don't get a say in how history turns out, but in that case I don't understand why we would do anything. If Christ has already achieved everything there is to be achieved, why bother doing anything? Why rescue the child from the river, given that God has already achieved his plan for the child? Or was that still odd and therefore I shouldn't be trying to look at it logically?
Oh, here's another tidbit. Given that Christians believe the souls of the saved go to heaven and the unforgiven go to hell, if the choice is between dying themselves and killing someone who may be in need of forgiveness, and they really believe, what justification is there in preserving their own life over the other's?
Heh...how about, if the Christian lives, he or she could convert many people to Christianity and save them, wheras if the attacker lives, there's a good chance he will never convert. So, on average, more people will be saved if the Christian kills the attacker, than if the attacker kills him or her. -- Xarak
I suspect that particular argument would be rejected by many as utilitarian: saying that the needs of the many are always greater than the needs of the few. Utilitarianism is an interesting beast, because there are some cases where it can "feel" very right such that opposing it instinctively feels abominable, but other cases when the utilitarian choice itself feels abominable. I believe it's a POV that many Christian Pacifists reject, anyway. The thing about these hypothetical situations is that for any stated principle or philosophy, you can always come up with a hypothetical situation that'll be difficult for that principle to answer without a bad taste in the mouth. That just means that life isn't easy. Thankfully, most teachers don't get confronted with homicidal maniacs trying to kill their entire class very often. --AlexChurchill
I agree with Alex about the difficulty of coming up with answers for questions like "someone's about to rape my granny... do I step in?" etc. For people who are seriously interested in the alternatives, there's a book I've had recommended (but that I've not yet had a chance to get hold of) called "What would you do?" by John Howard Yoder, which provides a number of examples of people who have been able to act non-violently when confronted with situations like these. I would indeed reject the above argument as utilitarian. Also, I don't have such a strong sense of the heaven/hell problem as many Christians. I would rather say that as a Christian, my hope is in Christ for salvation. My attacker may not have such a sure hope, and ought to be given longer to repent... (It could be argued either way really.)
I've thought over that one, and yes - I'd like to believe that given a direct choice I'd choose my death over a non-Christian's. But I've never been in that situation, and so have no way of telling what I'd do. And I'm a coward - SunKitten
And of course, that's a corollary to the debate. None of us know absolutely what we'd do. I've rather set myself up today, for acting peacefully whatever I'm confronted with. But I couldn't do that without the witness of other Christians. I read a very small piece written in somebody's blog/diary today about the way they try and see certain practices as a preparation for acting peacefully. Notice that one of the things that they are able to do is to call upon their neighbour because they live as part of a community that realises that this kind of strategy is not possible as an ethic for the individual. --AR
And I wonder if you missed, in all the confusion (taken from above):
Well, I might say that I fail to see how allowing a child to be mutilated can bear witness to the Kingdom. How would you reply?
Possibly the difference is that you see killing s some kind of special thing, in a different class to all other actions, whereas I'm not sure how it differs, except in scale, from (if I am stronger than the attacker) simply grabbing his arms and refusing to let him harm the child, or getting him in a bear-hug he cannot break, or twisting his arm so that he drops the weapon. These are presumably the sorts of things you mean when you advocate 'alternative solutions'. Why do you see killing as somehow in a special class of acts by itself?
Unlike your other suggestions, killing someone has the drastic, irreversible effect of rendering them permanently incapable of interacting with this world. Hence the difference is not merely one of scale. - MoonShadow
I think it's any kind of violence at all that I'm objecting to, not only killing. I already pointed out how difficult it is to come up with a good definition of violence though, and I accept that there are some instances where one might use force, but not endanger life in so-doing (restraining an epileptic having a seizure comes to mind). I don't know that allowing a child to be mutilated can bear witness to the kingdom as I don't think violence does bear witness to the kingdom, and that is an instance of violence. --AR
Which is the important bit, that the effect is drastic, that it's irreversible, or the combination? How does maining someone (for instance, cutting off their arm) figure?
IMO that it's irreversible. I suspect Angela will strongly disagree with me both in this and in any conclusions one might draw from it, though, so I'd better let her answer.. - MoonShadow
And does that mean that it's okay to shoot someone if you're a good shot, and medical assistance is nearby, so you're pretty sure they will survive?
How good a shot are you? Are we supposing you're such a perfect shot that there's no chance of you killing them at all, or what? Once we're supposing things anyway, let's suppose you don't have magic powers that tell you in advance whether talking them out of it is going to work or not; so, not being particularly maniacal yourself, you try talking it out first, like your mummy always told you - you try approaching them slowly while telling them to drop their weapon, and they swing their machete and kill you.. What were you doing in posession of a gun, anyway? - MoonShadow
My point is precisely that you can't see the future. You can only work out what is reasonably likely to happen. It migh tbe obvious that talking will work, it might be obvious that it won't, you might have to make a decision. You might be fairly sure you can injure without killing, but kill anyway. You might try to grab the knife but find that, because the attacker struggles, you end up killing him anyway.
As I understand it, you reckon killing them is a special class of action in itself -- but presuably, as anything could end up killing them you must mean 'aiming to kill them' (as you will allow an attempt at disarming, which migh tend up in death). So then: how close to risking killing them are you willing to allow me to go, before it becomes this special class of action which is forbidden?
....don't know. Do you think it's something where a general sharp line can be drawn that does not depend on the details of the situation? I don't. I can point you at the extremes, say "do this" and "don't do that"; I don't even know for certain how I would act in reality in the grey areas, let alone set out exact detailed laws for other people to follow in each combination of the billions of possibilities. I don't think it's OK to kill people; I do think it's OK to restrain people to stop them killing people; I don't know how close you can come to killing someone before it becomes not OK, or even how I'd tell or whether I'd physically be able to do anything. I would hope that I would act with the intent of stopping people dying, and without the intent of killing people. I doubt very much I'd know in advance what the results of my actions would be. I suspect, again, Angela will have a very different POV to me on this lot. - MoonShadow
Actually, I'd echo much of what MoonShadow has to say, especially about sharp lines in particular situations. Obviously I do take a sharp non-violence line, but I don't think it's possible to plan for every possible situation. Neither do I know how I would act in any given situation. I don't think I'm well enough practiced at the art of non-violence to guarantee not acting violently. I'm too used to barging around and getting my own way! Again, as I said below, I struggle with the difference between non-violent resistance and violent resistance. And the point about not being able to guarantee the outcome of any given situation is more important than it seems. So I don't know how far apart our views really are. I know I've got to respond to various points above, but I'm off for the evening to think about things other than violent maniacs! WikiByeBye? :-) --AR
I don't think it's okay to kill people. I don't think it's okay not to try to help someone in danger (and re-enacting Christ's sacrifice by getting yourself chopped into bloody bits isn't trying to help. Sacrificing yourself to give them time to get away might be, be a sacrifice which does not actually help them is not trying to help, no matter how much it might represent a personal apotheosis for yourself). This means that there are situations where nothing you can do is okay. Just like that it's never okay to lie, but it's not okay either to tell the Nazi who comes to your door about the Jews in your basement. But fundamentally, Angela and I agree that what is important morally is not actions, but character: the important thing is not obeying the rule 'do not lie', but being an honest person. The important thing is not a rule saying 'do not kill', but being a peaceful person. The difference is that just as I think that a virtuous, honest person could be forced into a situation where they might reasonably lie, so a virtuous, peaceful person could be forced into a situation where they might reasonably attack, never with the intent to kill per se, but perhaps with the acceptance that killing is the certain or almost-certain result of their attempt to save, and with regret. To do otherwise, to insist on a blanket ban on a certain type of action (whatever the character of the agent), is to slip into a deontological approach, with all its attendant problems.
This is my favourite criticism so far. I need to go and do some reading on the dangers of slipping into a deontological approach. I want to develop the argument, since I (perhaps like you) also want to draw on some form of virtue narrative. What I need to figure out is whether a continued stance of non-violence is compatible with something a virtuous person might reasonably do (or indeed, be). However, I'm currently involved in rather too many debates, and this is going to have to go on the back burner for some time. --AR
Bear in mind that even if 'a continued stance of non-violence is compatible with something a virtuous person might reasonably do' that does not necessarily imply that violence is not compatible with being a virutous person. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there can only be one right way to act in a situation.
If what you're saying is that compatibility does not lead to implication, I agree. I do not believe that I am falling into the trap of thinking there is one right way to act in a situation, but that there is one better stance. There are a variety of non-violent possible actions. --AR
You're falling into the trap of thinking that there is one 'best' way. My point is that even if you prove that non-violence is a reasonable option, you have not proved that it is the only reasonable option. And you can't just say that the best actionis necessarily unique (ie, that there can't be two different options which are both equally 'best') unless you either prove, or assume as a premise, that 'bestness' is necessarily unique: I don't think it's a reasonable premise, and I look forward to you proving it.
Whoa. I'm not trying to prove anything, merely to demonstrate or to witness or to show the possibility of a peaceful stance at all times. I wouldn't know how to prove it, even if I wanted to, because it's not a "position" that exists outside of the people who embody it and show its viability (mostly those of the historic peace churches). --AR
So you are not trying to argue that the use of violence is incompatible with being a virtuous Christian? If so, if you will say that it might be possible for a virtuous Christian to, in certain circumstances, use violence even to the point of killing and remain a virtuous Christian, then why didn't you say that before and we could have avoided all this?
I am trying to put forward a plausible argument for demonstrating that I don't think the use of violence is compatible with being a virtuous Christian. I'm not trying to prove it. I think that all I can do is be persuasive. I don't know whether it's possible for a Christian to remain virtuous, even to the point of killing. I think it unlikely, but that's what I need to go and do some more thinking about. --AR
Ah, a confusion of words. In that case: My point is that even if you plausibly argue that non-violence is a reasonable option, you have not plausibly argued that it is the only reasonable option. And you can't just say that the best action is necessarily unique (ie, that there can't be two different options which are both equally 'best') unless you either plausibly argue, or assume as a premise, that 'bestness' is necessarily unique: I don't think it's a reasonable premise, and I look forward to you coming up with a plausible argument for it.
What is under dispute in that case is what is "reasonable". If you think that in certain extreme circumstances violence is reasonable, and I never see it as reasonable, I'm not sure how we'll get anywhere. I think that there can be multiple options that are of equal merit, but I would say that they were non-violent options. There is probably some difficulty in locating what might be a "best" action because of the nature of the situations in question. If you're put in a situation, and you consider the most virtuous action(s) means that you have to act violently, you would go ahead and do so, and then claim that you had done the best thing possible. If I were put in a situation, and considered that the only virtuous action(s) would involve abstaining from violence, I'd (try to) do so, and then claim to have done the best thing possible. I shall attempt to do my best to show plausibility for non-violence as the only reasonable option, but I don't know how to do that other than by giving examples of people who live virtuously by acting non-violently. You could, obviously, show people who live virtuously by acting violently. What I don't know is whether I accept that it is ever virtuous to act violently. As I say, until an event has occurred, and somebody has acted, how they ought to or could have acted cannot be discussed. Even if they act as they ought to have done, I can't show that the outcome would have been preferable to what it would have been if they did what they ought not to have done. It depends which one of us you ask as to what exactly we might think they ought to have done anyway. That's why I can't prove, but only try to demonstrate that a policy of constant non-violence is preferable. In some ways, I think that this isn't a unique problem. It must occur in other instances. For example, even if the referee last night had declared the goal "allowed", I'd have no way of showing that Portugal would not then have scored again. --AR
That makes no sense because you're consfusing 'reasonable proof' with 'reasonable violence'.
'I shall attempt to do my best to show plausibility for non-violence as the only reasonable option, but I don't know how to do that other than by giving examples of people who live virtuously by acting non-violently' -- but that's like trying to prove that there's no such thing as a black cat by giving examples of tabbies.
To go back to virtue: it seems to me that forbidding a class of actions is inherently deological, as from the point of view of virtue no action is right or wrong except insofar as it reveals the agent's character to be in or out of accord with virtue. What is your reaction to the example of lying to the Nazis?
I do see your point. However, I think that there needs to exist a structure which allows for the recognition and naming of virtue. So whilst virtue might say that no action is right or wrong except in so far as it reveals the agent's character, I want to say that a negative character is revealed from the use of violence. Obviously the use of the virtue narrative is coloured by certain of my suppositions about Christian character, but all of those who narrate virtue are going to need to come from somewhere. (It makes you want to ask, "Whose virtue? Which action?...). So I don't know whether I'd want to forbid a class of actions (although I accept that some of what I've said above may look too deontological), but rather say that violent actions are not characteristic of the virtuous agent. I /think/ that works, but perhaps I'm re-defining what the virtue narrative is to look like in a way that means virtue narracists(sp?) would not recognise themelves. On the other hand, I think that re-narration and deconstruction can form healthy critique and ought to be part of the arsenal of weapons of the responsible story teller. The question then becomes, I suppose, why is a sustained stance of non-violence indicative of the virtuous character? I'd be tempted to answer in terms of another virtue, that of patience. Christians learn and reveal patience in waiting for the Kingdom of God, waiting for the perfection of heaven, waiting by not attempting to take control of history, and allowing God to dictate who dies and when. But I suspect that that's an answer you might not like... --AR
What is your reaction to the example of lying to the Nazis?
(And if we're to allow God to dictate who dies and when, we surely shouldn't save the drowning child, as we should let God decide if they die, and should dismantle modern medicine as it keeps people alive when we should be letting God decide).
I, on the other hand, would say that punching someone unconscious out of anger was an unqualifiedly bad act, while punching someone unconscious as a way of stopping them them being a threat without having to kill them, is a thing that a virtuous person might reasonably do when forced into a situation in which nothing they do can be perfectly virtuous (as standing back and allowing the attack to take place is clearly not virtuous either)
I've acknowledged that it is very difficult to distinguish between violence and restraint (see above). For example, I think a hug could be non-violent, but it could still restrain. I guess I'd say that violence points towards the risk of maiming or killing. I agree with you that standing back and allowing the attack to take place is not virtuous. --AR
(would like to see a response).
I hope I've responded to the right bit. I've got some of a response to the earlier stuff too, but I got an edit conflict and my machine is currently being re-profiled... --AR
Whew! This is long. To pour oil on the fires, I just finished reading 'Regeneration' - a dramatisation of the life of a couple of WWI poet-soldiers. The main characters are fairly vehemently pacifistic (and at the time that was an almost purely political term) But in several places people come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be both Christian and countenance war. I thought I'd mention this, but since they don't actually explain their reasoning (beyond appealing to horror) it may not be so useful. --Vitenka
todo: condense AngelaRayner and PlasmonPerson's discussion into a single statement and counterpoint, once it dies down (if it dies down) - there is a lot of repetition that can be factored out, and it might make interesting reading for newcomers once summarised See also GodIsLove, KnowingGodsWill, ThouShaltNotKill
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
ChristianPacifism